P. v. Faria
Filed 9/13/12 P. v. Faria CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JHELMAX FARIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
B239202
(Los Angeles
County Super.
Ct.
No. BA366634)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Ronald H. Rose, Judge.
Affirmed.
Linn Davis,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Following a
court trial,
title="">[1] defendant and appellant Jhelmax Faria was
found guilty in counts 1, 2, and 4 of robbery
(Pen. Code, § 211),
title="">[2] second degree burglary in count 3
(§ 459), and assault with a firearm in count 5 (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court found defendant personally
used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) as to all counts other than count 3.
Defendant
was sentenced to state prison for a
total term of 17 years 4 months. The
trial court imposed the midterm of three years for the robbery in count 1,
enhanced by 10 years for the firearm use allegation. A consecutive sentence of one year was
imposed for the robbery in count 4, enhanced by three years four months for the
firearm use. Concurrent sentences were
imposed in counts 2 and 3, and the sentence in count 5 was stayed under section
654.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal from
the judgment. This court appointed
counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
On June 5, 2012, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no
issues but requesting this court to independently review the record for
arguable contentions under
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Defendant was advised by letter on June 5, 2012, of his right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days. The 30-day period has
lapsed, and no brief has been filed by defendant.
FACTS
Defendant was convicted of five
offenses occurring on three occasions—two at the Wilshire Plaza Hotel in Los
Angeles and one at the Golden Key Hotel in Glendale. Defendant had been employed at both hotels
prior to the offenses committed at each location.
Four of the
charged crimes were committed at the Wilshire
Plaza, beginning with a commercial
burglary on June 14, 2004. Jennifer Alvidera, who had worked with
defendant at that location, was working as the hotel’s night auditor. A masked burglar entered through a door
leading from the garage, which was typically used by employees for
entrance. The burglar went immediately
to drawers at the front desk where money had been kept during defendant’s
period of employment. Alvidera had a
hint that defendant was the perpetrator as the crime occurred. A video of the incident showed the burglar’s
entry through the garage. Alvidera
identified defendant’s unique means of entry from video footage. Another employee viewed the video of the
incident and identified defendant based on body movement, the shape of his
body, and the shoes he wore. Defendant’s
cell phone records revealed that he made calls from Glendale prior to the
burglary, but he made calls shortly after the offense from a location near the
Wilshire Plaza.
A second
set of offenses took place at the Wilshire Plaza on September 8, 2009. Richard Gallon was accosted by a masked
robber, who was armed with a semiautomatic 9-millimeter handgun. After a struggle over the gun, Gallon knelt
on the floor and directed Alvidera to hand the assailant money from the cash
drawer. Gallon, who had worked with
defendant for four years, was certain defendant was the robber based on his
voice, body size, and movements.
Alvidera believed defendant committed the September 8 and June 14
offenses.
Defendant
had been employed at the Golden Key Hotel in Glendale, but was terminated after
failing to appear at work on September 7 and 8, 2009. On November 4, 2009, David Aoki was at work
at 5:00 a.m. at the Golden Key when he was accosted by a masked man who pointed
what appeared to be a key at him and directed him to the ground, asking for a
key to the cash drawer. Aoki felt a
round object placed against his head. Aoki recognized defendant’s voice “and I
pretty much knew that it was [defendant].â€
Aoki watched a video of the incident and saw that defendant was in
possession of a handgun. Defendant lives
less than one mile from the hotel.
DISCUSSION
We have
completed our independent review of the record.
There are no arguable appellate contentions. The trial court committed no errors in ruling
on pretrial motions, nor were there evidentiary
errors at trial. The sentence
imposed was within the range allowed by law.
The judgment is affirmed. (
259.)
KRIEGLER,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J.
MOSK,
J.
pretrial proceedings, defendant’s motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code
section 1538.5, filed in propria persona, was denied. A motion to dismiss under Penal Code
section 995 was denied except as to one duplicate count list in the
information. Defendant relinquished his
propria persona status and counsel was appointed. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on
the charged offenses.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] All
statutory references are to the Penal Code.
