P. v. Williams

Filed 1/6/09 P. v. Williams CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marsha N. Revel, Judge. Affirmed.

Allison K. Simkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * *

Following a court trial, appellant Wrochell Williams was convicted of the first degree robbery of a Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus passenger. The court found true allegations of three prior prison terms (Pen. Code,  667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior robbery conviction that qualified as a strike and as a prior serious felony conviction under Penal Code section 667, subdivision  (a)(1). Appellant was sentenced to prison for the low term of three years, doubled for one strike, plus five years pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court struck the allegations of the prison priors. Appellant appealed. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues.  Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief and has not done so.

The evidence showed that appellant argued with the victim, S.H., when she accidentally stepped on his foot as she walked toward the back of the bus. Just before he left the bus, appellant grabbed a bottle of brandy from S.H.s shopping bag and punched her in the chest. S.H. followed him off the bus and grabbed his shirt. He yelled at her and then handed the bottle to his companion, who tried to give it back to S.H. Appellant grabbed the bottle back and started drinking from it. S.H. called the police on her cell phone. They arrived and arrested appellant.

Having reviewed the entire record, we are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist.  (Smithv. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

FLIER, J.

We concur: RUBIN, Acting P. J. ONEILL, J^*

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* Judge of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.