Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
File date corrected per attached modification order
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 08CEJ601105-1R. David C. Kalemkarian Judge.
Michael Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, A.P.J., Cornell, J. and Hill, J.
August 4, 2008, Rogelio Vasquez was walking back from a store located across the street from his home when A.V., C.C., and appellant, E.C. approached him. The trio asked him for money. After Vasquez said he did not have any, C.C. pulled out a gun, put it to Vasquez’s chest, and again asked for money. Vasquez repeated that he did not have any and C.C. told appellant to “take away the things[.]” Appellant searched Vasquez’s pockets and took a cell phone, wallet, and some chips from him. The three juveniles then left on bicycles but were detained at a residence not far from where the robbery occurred. The cell phone and wallet were located by a police canine during a search of the residence’s backyard.
On September 23, 2008, the district attorney filed a petition charging appellant with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and an arming enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022 (a)(1)).
On January 28, 2009, following a contested hearing, the court found the allegations of the petition true.
On March 7, 2009, the court set appellant’s maximum term of confinement at six years and committed him to the Elkhorn Correctional Facility Delta Program for a period not to exceed 365 days.
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Filed 9/8/09
Modification of Opinion [No Change in Judgment]
BY THE COURT:
The opinion in the above entitled action which has an erroneous file stamp date of September 1, 2009, is modified as follows:
1. In the filing stamp on the first page of the opinion, the date “Sep 01 2009,” is deleted and the date “Sep 02 2009,” inserted in its place, so that the filing stamp establishes that the opinion was filed on September 2, 2009, which was in fact the date it was filed.