Opinion
H036408
12-09-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTONIO RAYMON CLEMMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC943600)
Defendant Antonio Raymon Clemman met the minor victim through a woman who was working for him as a prostitute. This young woman knew the victim from juvenile hall. The victim agreed to work for appellant as a prostitute, but changed her mind after working for him for a couple of days. Appellant would not let the victim leave and threatened to shoot her with a gun if she tried to go home. After she ran away and called the police, they apprehended appellant. He appeals from judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of pimping or pandering where the prostitute is a minor of at least 16 years old. (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (b)(1), 266i, subd. (a)(2).) The jury also found true the allegation regarding the personal use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 16 years in prison, consisting of the upper term of six years for the pimping charge and the upper term of 10 years for the gun enhancement. The court stayed a 16 year sentence as to the other count, pursuant to Penal Code section 654. This timely appeal ensued.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. In response defendant filed a two page handwritten letter brief contending that the trial witnesses were not credible and that trial counsel was biased against him. Pursuant to our obligation, as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed defendant's contentions and the record. We find nothing in the record before us to support his claims or raise any other issue warranting further analysis or briefing by the parties. Therefore, we conclude that there are no arguable issues and will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RUSHING, P.J. WE CONCUR:
PREMO, J.
ELIA, J.