P. v. Pak
Filed 1/8/13 P. v. Pak
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
JAMES PAK,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B242582
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA391824)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Teri Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed.
Marissa McKinster Magilligan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________
On December 7, 2011, police arrested appellant James Pak for misdemeanor domestic
battery of his girlfriend, a crime seen by at least two witnesses. Six days later on December 13, 2011, appellant grabbed a cell phone from the hand of a fellow bus
passenger. When the cell phone’s owner
tried to recover his phone, appellant threatened the owner with a tire iron.
On December 15, 2011, the People filed a felony complaint against appellant charging him
with one count of second degree robbery and two counts of receiving stolen
property for possessing the cell phone and its case. In the meantime either before the robbery or
shortly thereafter, appellant entered a plea of either guilty or nolo
contendere (the record does not indicate which) to misdemeanor domestic battery
of his girlfriend and was placed on summary probation. Shortly after entering his plea for domestic
battery, appellant on December 28, 2011, entered into
a plea bargain of the robbery charge. He
pleaded nolo contendere to one count of robbery, following which the court
dismissed the receiving stolen property charges and placed appellant on three
years’ formal probation.
Two months later at 1:00 a.m. on February 21, 2012, police
stopped appellant as he was riding a bike.
When the officers approached appellant, he dropped a small, cylindrical
pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine.
In searching appellant, the police found a piece of paper containing
stolen credit card information. Police
took appellant into custody and his probation was summarily revoked.
At appellant’s probation revocation
hearing on May 1,
2012, the court rejected as untimely
appellant’s peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section
170.6. After testimony by police and the
owner of the stolen credit card identified on the piece of paper seized from
appellant, the court found appellant had violated terms of his probation by
possessing the methamphetamine pipe. At
the sentencing hearing two weeks later, appellant requested reinstatement to
probation and placement in a residential drug treatment program. The court deemed appellant unsuitable for
probation given his propensity for violence in his crimes of domestic battery
and robbery. The court instead imposed a
low-term two-year prison sentence on appellant for robbery, and dismissed the
charges involving the methamphetamine pipe and stolen credit card
information. The court also awarded
appellant 98 days presentence custody credits and 14 days local conduct credits.
This appeal followed. We appointed appellate counsel to represent
appellant. On November 21, 2012, appellant’s counsel filed a Wende
brief stating she could not find any arguable issues for appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
We sent a letter to appellant inviting him to file a letter or brief
raising any issues he wanted us to consider.
On November 29, 2012, appellant filed
a letter, the gist of which asks that we cut his sentence in half. His letter states his belief that he would be
better off in a drug program, and also refers to a “strike†and suggests the
strike stands in the way of reducing his sentence. As to the latter, our independent review of
the record finds no indication of a “strike†or that it affected his sentence
for robbery, which was the low-term of two years (Pen. Code, § 213,
subd. (a)(2)). As to a drug
program, although from appellant’s letter he has made progress in turning his
life around, the trial court’s sentence was well within its discretion. Following our independent review of the
record, we find no arguable issues
for appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN,
J.
WE
CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
FLIER, J.
