P. v. Murrillo
Filed 1/16/09 P. v. Murrillo CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO MURRILLO, Defendant and Appellant. | D052908 (Super. Ct. No. SCD210485) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Eduardo Murrillo entered a negotiated guilty plea to first degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] 211, 212.5, subd (a), 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)) with personal firearm use ( 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)). The court stayed the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement and sentenced him to 13 years in prison: the three-year lower term for robbery and 10 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement.[2] Murrillo appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Murrillo and a companion went to the victim's home with a gun. They bound and tied the victim and took his money. Murillo threatened the victim with the gun.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) the applicability of the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) mandatory 10-year enhancement for firearm use in the commission of certain enumerated felonies as opposed to the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) lesser three, four, or 10-year enhancement for firearm use in the commission of any felony; (2) the effect of the lack of a defense objection to the absence of a statement of reasons for consecutive sentences; (3) the correctness of the presentence custody credits calculation; and (4) the denial of the Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) for new appointed counsel and whether such an issue can be raised after a guilty plea.
We granted Murrillo permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Murrillo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Murrillo was sentenced in another case at the same time he was sentenced in this case. Two of the terms in the other case were made consecutive to the sentence here. The offenses underlying those two terms occurred before the offenses in this case and are unrelated to the offenses here.
