Opinion
E052756
08-22-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEON MAURICE COX, Defendant and Appellant.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIF153742)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Rafael A. Arreola, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
An information charged defendant and appellant Leon Maurice Cox, along with codefendant Corinne Tina Nava, as follows: robbery under Penal Code section 211 (count 1); and receiving stolen property under section 496, subdivision (a) (count 3). Only codefendant Nava was charged in count 2. The information also alleged that, as to count 1, defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, i.e., a knife (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)); and that defendant previously had been convicted of receiving stolen property and burglary, and had not remained free of custody for a five-year period (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Following the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor added grand theft under section 487 (count 4). Defendant entered a plea of guilty to count 4, in exchange for a sentence of three years in state prison. The court awarded defendant presentence credits as follows: 230 days actual days and 184 conduct days, for a total of 414 days.
Subsequently, defendant wrote to the trial court requesting that his presentence credits be increased as follows: 230 actual days and 230 conduct days, for a total of 460 days. At the hearing to address defendant's letter, the trial court agreed with defendant and awarded him 460 days of presentence credit.
In his letter, defendant also discussed credits in another case and requested that he be awarded a total of 644 days of presentence credit. At the hearing, the court acknowledged defendant's request and noted that defendant could not get credit for time served on a different case.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Subsequent to filing his notice of appeal, defendant filed a request to augment the record. We deemed the request to augment as a request for judicial notice. We granted defendant's request for judicial notice and have taken judicial notice of all the document copies attached to the request as Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The statement of facts is taken from the preliminary hearing transcript.
On October 26, 2009, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Riverside Police Officer Stephen Quinn responded to a battery-in-progress call at 3514 Lemon Street. When Officer Quinn arrived at the location, he spoke with Jennifer Reynolds (the victim). The victim stated that a man and a woman had approached her and robbed her at knife point. The victim said that she was riding her bicycle on Lemon Street when Corrine approached the victim. Corrine was also on a bicycle and pulled her bicycle in front of the victim's, blocking the victim's path. At that point, the victim was approached from behind by a male, who had a knife in his hand.
The victim stated that she had been involved in a dating relationship with the male, and she knew the female by her first name, Corrine. The victim gave the officer a description of Corrine and stated that she was pregnant with the male's child. The victim identified the male as defendant.
Defendant demanded that the victim give him some of her property. The victim stated that defendant had been involved in a domestic violence incident that had occurred a few weeks earlier with the victim; she had been assaulted. The victim stated that when defendant approached her on Lemon Street, she was afraid that he would physically harm her or even stab her with the knife. Defendant and Corrine took the victim's bicycle, an MP3 player, a set of headphones, a pair of white tennis shoes, and a pair of black tennis shoes.
Later that evening, Officer Quinn received a radio call stating that a child's bicycle had been stolen in the area of Brockton and Tenth. The officer responded to that call. When he arrived, he noticed that there was a woman on a bicycle at the intersection. The officer learned that her name was Corrine, and that she was pregnant with defendant's child. Corrine was identified as Corrine Nava, a codefendant in this case.
Corrine was arrested and taken to the police station where she was searched. Officer Quinn found a portable CD player with the victim's name, "Jennifer," written on the top, and a pair of headphones. After Corrine was booked into custody, Officer Quinn's partner contacted the victim and brought her into the station. The victim identified both the headphones and the CD player as her property that had been taken from her during the robbery.
The next day, at 4:30 p.m., Officer Christian Wilcox was in the area of Lemon and Sixth Streets. Officer Wilcox had seen a flyer indicating that defendant was wanted for robbery. The officer, therefore, was looking for defendant. Officer Wilcox located defendant on the corner of Lemon and Sixth Streets. The officer asked defendant for his name. Defendant told the officer that his name was Michael. The officer, however, recognized defendant from the flyer and detained him.
Officer Wilcox patted defendant down and again asked for his name. Defendant again gave the officer a false name. The officer asked defendant if he had anything like a weapon in his waistband; defendant responded no. The officer located a knife in defendant's waistband. The knife matched the description of the knife that had been used in the robbery. Subsequently, defendant informed the officer that he was Leon Cox. The officer then found an iPod, a wallet and other personal property on defendant's person.
At the station, Officer Wilcox read defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Defendant agreed to make a statement. Defendant stated that he had been present during the robbery of the victim the previous day. Defendant denied that the incident had been a robbery. Instead, he indicated that he and Corinne were upset with the victim, which prompted the contact. During the contact, Corinne stated that she was going to rob Jennifer. Defendant stated, "Okay. But don't hurt her." Defendant said that they took an iPod, a bicycle, a pair of shoes, and a cheeseburger.
Defendant stated that after the robbery, he and Corinne met at a bus station where he traded a set of headphones for the iPod. Defendant stated that he knew that the iPod was stolen.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKinster
Acting P.J.
We concur:
Richli
J.
Codrington
J.