P. v. Lopez
Filed 8/9/12 P. v. Lopez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
DANNY LOPEZ,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E054614
(Super.Ct.Nos. SWF1100369 &
SWF029661)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
County. Raymond C.
Youngquist, Judge. (Retired judge of the
San Bernardino Super. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.
Janice
R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
and appellant Danny Lopez is serving a three-year state prison term after a
jury found him guilty of a 2011 attempted
robbery with a deadly weapon enhancement in case No. SWF1100369. He is also serving a concurrent two-year term
for a 2009 conviction for unlawful entry of a motor vehicle, after his
probation was revoked, in case No. SWF029661. Defendant appeals from both cases.
And Procedure
On
November 16, 2009, in Case
No. SWF029661, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully entering a motor vehicle
(Pen. Code, § 459)
title="">[1] and attempting to unlawfully take a motor
vehicle (Pen. Code, § 664; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) That same day, the court granted defendant
three years of probation, with conditions including that he serve 180 days in
county jail and violate no laws.
On
December 15, 2009, the
People filed a petition alleging defendant had violated probation by being
drunk in public. (§ 647.) On December
22, 2009, defendant’s probation was reinstated. On September
22, 2010, the People again filed a petition alleging defendant had
violated probation by being drunk in public.
On October 12, 2010,
defendant’s probation was again reinstated, but defendant was ordered to serve
an additional 60 days in custody.
On
February 5, 2011, about 11:30 p.m., defendant, with his white T-shirt
pulled up over his face, approached a truck driver in the parking lot of an
inn. Defendant had a large hammer in his
right hand, held straight down at his side.
Defendant told the truck driver “I need some money. I need $100.”
The truck driver was afraid of the hammer because it looked
menacing. He took all of his money out
of his wallet and told defendant it was $10 or $15. Defendant said again that he needed $100, but
the truck driver again said that he did not have that much. Defendant told the truck driver “Go on, get
out of here.” Defendant was apprehended
one-quarter mile or so away.
On
June 14, 2011, a jury found
defendant guilty of attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211) and found true that he
had personally used a dangerous weapon (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1),
1192.7, subd. (c)(23)).
On
August 19, 2011, the court
revoked defendant’s probation in the 2009 matter. On that day, the court sentenced defendant to
two years for the attempted robbery plus one year for the personal use
enhancement, for a total of three years.
Regarding the 2009 case, the court sentenced defendant to two years, to
be served concurrently with the sentence for the robbery case. This appeal followed.
Defendant appealed
and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority
of People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting
forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable
issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the
record.
We offered
defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. Pursuant to the mandate of
we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no
arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
KING
J.
unless otherwise indicated.
