From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Daniel

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Mar 20, 2008
No. C056847 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCUS DANIEL, Defendant and Appellant. C056847 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento March 20, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 06F07593

ROBIE, J.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

On August 29, 2006, defendant and his friend went to Phuong Tran’s Long Island ice cream shop. Defendant placed what appeared to be a gun on the counter, and told Tran to open the cash register, take the money out, and put it on the counter. Tran complied. Defendant took the money and he and his friend left the shop.

Defendant was charged with robbery and it was further alleged he had committed the offense while personally armed with a firearm. Defendant was also charged with a violation of probation in case No. 05F06989. Following a jury trial, the jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery, but found the personally armed enhancement not true. Based on this conviction, the court found defendant had violated his probation.

Defendant was sentenced to the midterm of three years in state prison. On the violation of probation case, he was ordered to serve a term of two years, concurrent with his sentence on the robbery conviction.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., SIMS, J.


Summaries of

People v. Daniel

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Mar 20, 2008
No. C056847 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Daniel

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCUS DANIEL, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Mar 20, 2008

Citations

No. C056847 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2008)