Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Sotelo, Judge. Affirmed. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA087667
Robert H. Pourvali, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
WOODS, J.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Arturo Barragan was convicted by jury of assault with a firearm, a felony, (count 1) and carrying a loaded firearm, a misdemeanor (count 2). The jury also found as to count 1 that Barragan personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense.
The evidence at trial was on the afternoon of November 2, 2006, Barragan stood in his front yard and pointed a handgun at Jose Guillen, who was about 24 feet away, walking with his family. When Guillen asked why the gun was pointed at him, Barragan said that “he was ‘going to test it.’” Guillen fled with his family and telephoned police who responded to the scene.
From a police helicopter, Officer Sara Jamarillo saw Barragan place a handgun in the back of a parked SUV, and she alerted arriving patrol officers. Officer Gabriel Martinez recovered a loaded nine-millimeter Beretta handgun from the SUV. Barragan waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]), and he admitted the handgun belonged to him.
Cesar Vega testified that he lived with Barragan. On the afternoon of November 2, 2006, Vega and “Bob” were playing outside with a toy gun until Vega joined Barragan inside the house. The two of them later went out to investigate a suspicious man walking around the house. According to Vega, Barragan never pointed a gun at anyone. Robert Chambers, who worked with Barragan, corroborated Vega’s testimony. Barragan testified in his own defense, and denied carrying or pointing a gun at anyone.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Barragan on three years probation on condition that he serve 180 days in county jail. Barragan timely filed a notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent Barragan on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On September 4, 2007, we advised Barragan that 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 that Barragan’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, 123-124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J.