From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Adame

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Jul 22, 2021
No. B310490 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2021)

Opinion

B310490

07-22-2021

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ADAME, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of Los Angeles Super. Ct. No. KA084318, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

PERREN, J.

In 2008, a jury convicted appellant of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), kidnaping to commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1).) The jury found these crimes were committed in association with, or for the benefit of, a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) The court sentenced him to state prison for three consecutive indeterminate life terms, with seven, or fifteen-year minimum terms, and a consecutive determinate term of five years plus ten years for the gang enhancement. It imposed a restitution fine of $10, 000.00.

Appellant filed a postconviction motion under Penal Code section 1202.4 requesting a hearing to determine whether the restitution order violated constitutional protections against excessive fines under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because he lacked the ability to pay. (People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.) The trial court denied the motion.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. We advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. The 30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any contentions or issues for our consideration.

Because this appeal is from an order denying post-conviction relief rather than the first appeal of right from a criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501; People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.)

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: GILBERT, P.J. YEGAN, J.


Summaries of

People v. Adame

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Jul 22, 2021
No. B310490 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2021)
Case details for

People v. Adame

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ADAME, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Jul 22, 2021

Citations

No. B310490 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2021)