Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA275926, Patricia M. Schnegg, Judge.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PERLUSS, P. J.
This case is before us for a second time. Luis Alfonso Mora confronted J. L. and H. S. at gunpoint on the street and robbed them of their valuables. Mora ordered J. L. to drive Mora and H. S. to a bank where J. L. was to use his automated teller machine card to withdraw money for Mora. J. L. withdrew $120 from a drive-through automated teller machine and gave it to Mora. Mora told J. L. to return to the location of their original confrontation, but then changed his mind and had J. L. stop the car and get into the trunk. Mora drove the car back to the original location, parked and sexually assaulted H. S. In the meantime J. L. escaped from the trunk and fled.
The jury convicted Mora of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) (counts 1 (J. L.) and 2 (H. S.)); one count of kidnapping to commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)) (count 3 (J. L.)); one count of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)) (count 4 (H. S.)); one count of first degree robbery involving use of an automated teller machine (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b)) (count 5 (J. L.)); one count of false imprisonment (§ 236) (count 6 (J. L.)); one count of kidnapping with intent to commit rape (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)) (count 7 (H. S.)); one count of sexual battery by restraint (§ 243.4, subd. (a)) (count 8 (H. S.)); and one count of assault with intent to commit a sexual offense (§ 220) (count 9 (H. S.)). The jury found true the special allegation as to all counts Mora had personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b).
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Mora was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life with the possibility of parole for two of the kidnapping charges (counts 3 and 7), plus an aggregate determinate term of 18 years, consisting of consecutive terms of three years for robbery on count 1, one year for robbery on count 2 (one-third of the middle term), eight months for false imprisonment on count 6 (one-third of the middle term), 10 years for the firearm-use enhancement on count 1 and three years four months (one-third of the prescribed term) for the firearm-use enhancement in count 2. Sentence as to the remaining counts and enhancements was ordered stayed.
In Mora’s initial appeal we held there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for kidnapping with intent to commit rape (count 7 (H. S.)), affirmed the judgment in all other respects and remanded the matter for resentencing, including lifting the stay on the sentence imposed on count 4 for simple kidnapping as to H. S. (People v. Mora (July 12, 2007, B190744 [nonpub. opn.]).)
On remand the trial court resentenced Mora to an indefinite term of life with the possibility of parole on count 3, plus an aggregate determinate term of 23 years eight months, consisting of a principal term of five years for kidnapping on count 4, plus 10 years for the firearm-use enhancement on that count, and consecutive subordinate terms of one year for robbery on count 1 and one year for robbery on count 2, three years four months for the firearm-use enhancement on count 1 and three years four months for the firearm-use enhancement on count 2. Sentence as to counts 5, 8 and 9 and the accompanying enhancements was ordered stayed. Counts 6 and 7 and the accompanying enhancements were dismissed (§ 1385). Mora received presentence custody credit of 1180 days (1030 actual days and 150 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Mora to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45.
We appointed counsel to represent Mora on this second appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On May 14, 2008 we advised Mora he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Mora’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, J., ZELON, J.