P. v. Hempe
Filed 2/4/13 P. v. Hempe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
JONATHAN RICARDO HEMPE,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E054888
(Super.Ct.No.
FWV1002625)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
Bernardino County. Mary
E. Fuller, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeanine
G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
and appellant Jonathan Ricardo Hempe is serving 33 years in prison after
pleading guilty to robbery, extortion and
burglary, and admitting a gun use enhancement. As discussed below, we affirm the judgment.
and Procedure
On
October 20, 2010,
defendant and his codefendant were at the codefendant’s home with two
friends/victims talking and drinking.
When the four men went for a drive, defendant and one of the victims,
Paredes, got into an argument over money Paredes owed to defendant. At some point defendant had Paredes place a
call to his father telling him he needed some money to pay off a debt. Defendant took the phone from Paredes and
told the father that he had Paredes in the trunk of his car and that something
bad would happen if he did not pay $1500. Defendant sent a text to his codefendant
saying he was going to “smoke†both of the victims. Defendant was armed with a 9-millimeter
handgun and his codefendant had a .357 revolver. The car pulled over to a desolate area and
defendant told the two victims to “just get out of here.†He also took their wallets and cell
phones. As the victims walked away,
defendant fired at them four times, striking Paredes once in the back. Defendant and his codefendant then drove to
Paredes’ residence and demanded money from the family while brandishing their
handguns. The family handed over $600.
On
October 22, 2010, the
People filed a complaint charging defendant with two counts of
§§ 664/187(a)),
title="">[1] two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211),
two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), extortion (§ 520),
residential burglary (§ 459), possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle
(§ 12020, subd. (a)), two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§
12021, subd. (a)(1)), and possession for sale of a controlled substance (§
Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The
People also alleged that defendant had a prior strike (§§ 1170.12 & 667,
subds. (b)-(i)) and serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that
he personally used a firearm and caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.53).
On
April 26, 2011, defendant
pled guilty to second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm (without
the great bodily injury allegation), one count of extortion, and one count of
residential burglary. Defendant also
admitted to having one prior strike and one serious felony conviction.
On
June 8, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed term of 33
years in prison, as follows: three years
for the robbery, doubled to six years for the prior strike, 20 years for the
firearm enhancement, two years for the robbery, a stayed term of two years and
eight months for the burglary, and five years for the prior serious felony.
At
the victim restitution hearing held on August
18, 2011, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $40,000 to
Paredes for uninsured medical bills and $7,560 to the other victim. Defendant’s liability is joint and several
with that of his codefendant. Defense
counsel agreed to these amounts. This
appeal followed.
Upon
defendant’s 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, and granted numerous extensions at his request, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate
of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no
arguable issues.
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
MILLER
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory references are to the
Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
