P. v. Robinson
Filed 2/4/10 P. v. Robinson CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HORACESSA ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant. | B217066 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA104078) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Horacessa Robinson appeals from the judgment entered following her no contest plea to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and her admission that she suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) (d) and 667, subds. (b) (i).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, a second count of first degree robbery was dismissed and appellant was sentenced to prison for two years consecutive to a five-year term in case No. NA077541.[1] The two-year term consisted of one-third the middle term of three years, or one year, doubled by reason of her prior strike conviction. Her request for a certificate of probable cause was granted.
The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that on June 27, 2008, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Eun Na and Grace Na were behind the display case of their jewelry store on East Compton Boulevard in the County of Los Angeles, when appellant and several companions entered the store. The male in the group shattered the glass display case with a hammer and appellant and her companions grabbed gold chains and other items from the display case and exited the store. Approximately $39,000 in merchandise was taken in the robbery. The victims reported to the police investigating the robbery that they had been close to the display case when the man shattered the glass and feared they were going to be attacked.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On October 28, 2009, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against her in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The appeal in case No. B216779 is pending in this court.
