Opinion
B230586
09-13-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIAN BARRERA, Defendant and Appellant.
Cannon & Harris and Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA356179)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed.
Cannon & Harris and Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before us for the second time. Previously, in appeal number B218958, we affirmed defendant and appellant Adrian Barrera's conviction for attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211 ) and the trial court's imposition of a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8). A majority of this court reversed defendant's admission that he suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1) because his admission was not voluntary and intelligent as it was taken without a proper advisement and waiver of his constitutional rights. The majority remanded the matter for a trial or admission concerning defendant's alleged prior conviction and for resentencing. On remand, a jury found true the prior conviction allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for nine years, imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and suspended a $200 parole restitution revocation fine (§1202.45), imposed a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and imposed a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)).
We grant defendant's request to take judicial notice of the files, transcripts, and records in Court of Appeal case number B218958.
All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
--------
On appeal, defendant's counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. On July 14, 2011, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues, and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant filed a letter brief in which he raises a number of issues that apparently concern his initial trial and not the trial following remand. We have reviewed the record and affirm the true finding on the prior conviction allegations.
BACKGROUND
In the trial following remand, the trial court took judicial notice of the court file in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number VA105045. The trial court further took judicial notice that defendant was the person named in case number VA105045. Nina Kaminsky, a fingerprint expert employed by the Los Angeles Police Department's identification section, testified that she prepared a fingerprint exemplar card with defendant's fingerprints. Kaminsky compared those fingerprints with the fingerprints on a fingerprint form in case number VA105045, and opined that defendant's fingerprints were on the fingerprint form in case number VA105045. John Helbling, a paralegal for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, testified that a trial court information system document for case number VA105045 reflected that defendant was convicted of robbery on November 20, 2008. The jury found true the allegations that defendant suffered a robbery conviction on November 20, 2008, in case number VA105045 within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On July 14, 2011, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any ground of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant submitted a letter in which he asserts that he wants to "fight this case all over again" because his attorney did not represent him "the right way"; there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first degree robbery, so he was found guilty of attempted second degree robbery because "they just wanted a conviction" in his case; the trial court did not permit him to fire his attorney for ineffective assistance of counsel; his attorney gave up his rights and failed to tell him what to do or say; and there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempted robbery because the alleged victim testified that defendant stole from him, not that defendant tried to steal from him. As a post script, defendant states that he needs a lawyer who can help him and not be against him. The matter before us concerns the trial, following remand, of the prior conviction allegations under the Three Strikes law and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant's claims in his letter do not appear to concern that trial, but appear to concern his initial trial in which he was found guilty of attempted second degree robbery. Any claims defendant has with respect to his initial trial should have been raised in his initial appeal (appeal number B218958). We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's counsel has fully complied with counsel's responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MOSK, J. We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.