Opinion
B305290
03-19-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA447497 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard S. Kemalyan, Judge. Affirmed. A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2016, defendant and appellant Francisco Martinez pled guilty to one count of injuring a spouse, cohabitant, fiancé, boyfriend, girlfriend, or child's parent. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Martinez on five years formal probation. On September 13, 2019, Martinez was arrested for robbery. (§ 211.) On December 19, 2019, a jury found Martinez guilty of robbery in case number BA481185. Based on this new conviction, on January 28, 2020, the trial court found Martinez in violation of probation for failure to obey all laws. The court sentenced Martinez to 10 years in state prison, consisting of an upper term of five years for the robbery conviction, doubled to 10 years because Martinez sustained a prior strike conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) Although the court terminated probation, it did not impose additional time for the probation violation.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Martinez timely appealed the finding that he violated probation, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On September 2, 2020, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Martinez did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing. We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
The notice of appeal specified Martinez was appealing from the "contested violation of probation," not from the jury trial for robbery. Martinez's separate appeal from the case in which he was convicted of robbery is currently pending before this court as case number B305289. --------
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CURREY, J. We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P.J. COLLINS, J.