From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Camacho

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 15, 2008
No. F053752 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County Nos. MF45603 & MF43942, John D. Kirihara, Judge.

Julia Freis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Hill, J. and Kane, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On May 14, 2007, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Frankey Jamar Camacho with felony robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).

On May 15, 2007, appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the substantive count.

On July 10, 2007, jury trial commenced. On the same date, the court denied appellant’s motion for substitution of appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 .

On July 12, 2007, both sides rested and the jury subsequently returned a guilty verdict.

On August 9, 2007, the court conducted a sentencing hearing, denied appellant probation, and sentenced appellant to a total term of five years eight months in state prison. The court imposed the upper term of five years on the robbery count and a consecutive term of eight months (one-third of the middle term) for violation of probation on an unrelated grand theft conviction in Merced County Superior Court case No. MF43942 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)). The court imposed a $1,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and suspended a second such fine pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45), and awarded 188 days of custody credits as to the robbery and 141 days of custody credits as to the grand theft underlying the violation of probation.

On August 21, 2007, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The following facts are taken from the probation officer’s report and recommendation filed August 9, 2007:

“On February 27, 2007, Merced police officers were dispatched to The Cigarette Store … in regard to a robbery in progress. Upon arrival, the officer contacted the store clerk, Dana Daniels, who said a black male with a shaved [head], wearing a black shirt, black shorts and a red sweater ‘around his neck,’ had robbed the store. She further told the officer the subject was approximately 5’1 to 5’2 in height, and weighed approximately 140 to 150 pounds.

“Daniels explained to the officer she was standing behind the store’s counter when the subject came into the store and began to ‘look around.’ She observed the subject, later identified as the defendant, place his hand underneath his shirt and appeared to be ‘fumbling around with something.’ The defendant approached the counter and told her, ‘I have a gun. I’ll shoot you if you don’t give me all your money. Hurry up you fucking bitch and don’t push the button or I’ll shoot you.’ [¶] Daniels complied and gave the defendant all the five and one dollar bills which were in the register. The defendant then exited the store and rode away on a bicycle.

“While officers were speaking with Daniels, a witness approached them. The witness told officers he followed the suspect and observed the suspect ride his bicycle into an apartment complex in the unit block of West 25[th] Street. [¶] While other officers were searching the area, a subject matching the defendant’s description was observed in a taxi. The taxi was stopped and the defendant was contacted. Daniels was transported to the location where the defendant had been detained and when Daniels observed the defendant, she positively identified him as the subject who had robbed the store....”

DISCUSSION

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.) By letter of March 27, 2008, this court invited appellant to submit additional briefing and state any grounds of appeal he may wish this court to consider. Appellant has not done so. Our independent review discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issues. “[A]n arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Camacho

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 15, 2008
No. F053752 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Camacho

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANKEY JAMAR CAMACHO, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 15, 2008

Citations

No. F053752 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)