Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA071400. Charles E. Horan, Judge.
Robert M. Sweet, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, ACTING P. J.
Manuel Zepeda was convicted of carjacking, robbery, assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and burglary. The jury also found true sentence enhancement allegations relating to his personal use of a deadly weapon, that a principal was armed with a firearm, and his prior serious felony convictions. After finding that certain aggravating factors justified high-term sentences, the trial court imposed a combined sentence of 27 years and 8 months. In an unpublished decision filed February 22, 2007 (No. B188754), we affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court’s fact-finding when imposing the high-term sentence violated Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___.
On remand, the trial court imposed mid-term sentences totaling 19 years and 8 months as to counts 1 and 2 as follows: (1) for carjacking, the five-year mid-term doubled by the Three Strikes law, and consecutive enhancements of two years and five years for, respectively, use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(2)) and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)); and (2) for robbery, two years and eight months, comprised of one-third the four-year mid-term, which was doubled by the Three Strikes law. The court imposed doubled mid-term sentences, along with certain enhancements, on the remaining counts, but stayed those pursuant to section 654. The firearm personal use allegation was stricken under section 1385.
All further section references are to the Penal Code.
Zepeda filed a notice of appeal. On September 21, 2007, his appellate counsel filed a Wende brief. Attached to the brief was a declaration from counsel stating that he had reviewed the record, written to Zepeda, sent him a copy of the brief and the record, and advised him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. That same day, we sent Zepeda a letter concerning his counsel’s inability to find any arguable issues and advised him of his right to file supplemental briefing. Zepeda did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Zepeda’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: FLIER, J., EGERTON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.