People v. Nadal

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONZA CHARLES NADAL, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta

Date published: Oct 15, 2009

No. C060770 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONZA CHARLES NADAL, Defendant and Appellant. C060770 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Shasta October 15, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 08F3940

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

Defendant Leonza Charles Nadal was charged by information with the following offenses, all alleged to have occurred on April 15, 2008: first degree robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, § 211);¹ false imprisonment by violence (counts 2 & 4; § 236); assault with a firearm (count 3; § 245, subd. (a)(2)); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 5; § 245, subd. (b)); and attempted murder (count 6; §§ 187/664). It was further alleged that defendant acted in concert with two or more persons in committing a robbery of an inhabited dwelling house (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

After a preliminary hearing, defendant was held to answer.

Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to one count of robbery and admitted one prior prison term in return for a stipulated prison term of seven years and the People’s agreement to dismiss the remaining charges and enhancements. The parties stipulated that the preliminary hearing provided the factual basis for the plea. According to the transcript of the preliminary hearing, defendant and other persons robbed the victim at gunpoint at his residence, taking cash, marijuana, and other items.

After defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was denied, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: RAYE, J., BUTZ, J.