P. v.
Filed 4/4/13 P. v. Zamora 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NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
ROY
ALFONSO ZAMORA,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242568
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. VA121372)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Roger Ito, Judge.
Affirm.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Roy Alfonso Zamora.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Defendant Roy Alfonso
Zamora appeals from the judgment entered after his no contest plea to
a Wende brief. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On November 30, 2012, we
directed appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of counsel’s brief to
defendant and notified defendant of his right to respond within 30 days. We received no response.
Defendant’s
notice of appeal states that it is based upon the sentence or other matters
occurring after the plea that do not affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) We have reviewed the whole record under
106, focusing upon the sentence as that is the only matter that occurred after
entry of the plea.
Defendant
was originally charged with two counts:
1) premeditated attempted murder
(Pen.Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a))
assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The information was later amended to include
a third count of attempted murder. Use
of a knife and infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1),
12022.7, subd. (a) were alleged as to counts 1 and 3.
Defendant
pled no contest to count 3, attempted murder, and admitted the enhancement
allegations. Pursuant to a
years in prison, consisting of a high term of nine years for the attempted
murder, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court stayed punishment on the weapon-use
enhancement. The remaining charges were
dismissed. Defendant was awarded 299
days of custody credit (260 days of actual credit and 39 days of conduct
credit), and ordered to provide a DNA sample.
The court imposed a restitution fine of $240 and an additional $240
suspended parole revocation fine. (§§
1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45).
Additionally, the court assessed a $40 court security fee and a $30
Having
reviewed the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues for appeal exist.
The
judgment is affirmed.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We
concur:
WILLHITE, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
subsequent references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
