Opinion
B234338
02-08-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS FLORES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VA113316)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Philip H. Hickok, Judge. Affirmed.
Victor J. Morse, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Dennis Flores (defendant) pleaded guilty to second degree robbery and admitted the gang and prior prison term allegations. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 25 years. On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court independently review the entire record to determine if there are any issues which if resolved in defendant's favor would require reversal or modification of the judgment.
Based on our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Because this appeal follows a plea, the facts are taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
On December 10, 2009, at around 1:00 a.m., Sergio Noches was parked in his truck at a mini-mart on Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera. He was talking on his telephone when two men walked in front of his truck. One of the males, co-defendant Sonny Aguilar, asked Noches what he was doing there. The other male, co-defendant Joseph Rodriguez, was standing closer to the street "just looking out." Defendant met the other two men and then knocked on Noches's window, which Noches rolled down. Defendant asked Noches, "Do you know where you are?" When Noches responded that he was in Pico Rivera, defendant asked "Do you gang bang?" and Noches said "No, I don't." Defendant then pulled out a revolver and pointed it at Noches's left temple. Defendant made Noches exit the truck, patted him down, and told him to enter the back seat of the truck. Two of the men pushed Noches into the back seat while defendant sat in the driver's seat. Aguilar sat in the back seat with Noches and Rodriguez took the front passenger seat. While Noches's face was down, his hands were tied behind his back with a seat belt. Defendant started the truck and told Noches that if he moved defendant would shoot him. Defendant said "I don't care [if I go] back to jail, I don't care [if I do] it again." Noches was frightened and concerned that defendant would carry out his threat.
Defendant drove the truck to a gas station close to the 605 freeway in Santa Fe Springs or Norwalk. Aguilar was holding the gun and pointing it at Noches's face. He advised Noches not to look at him and instructed Noches to buy gas with Noches's credit card. When Noches exited the truck and went to the pump, Aguilar followed Noches. At the pump, Noches pushed Aguilar away and ran into the gas station. He told the manager to lock the door and call the police. Noches identified defendant that evening in the field.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In an information, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant in count 1 with kidnapping for the purpose of carjacking in violation of Penal Code section 209.5, subdivision (a); in court 2 with carjacking with the use of a firearm in violation of section 215, subdivision (a); in count 4 with making criminal threats in violation of section 422; in count 6 with possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of section 12021, subdivision (a)(1); and in count 8 with attempted second degree robbery in violation of sections 664 and 211. The district attorney further alleged that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of counts 1 and 2 within the meaning of sections 12022.53, subdivision (b) and 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1). The district attorney also alleged as to counts 1, 2, 4, and 6 that defendant had suffered a prior felony conviction resulting in a prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). And the district attorney alleged as to counts 1, 2, and 8 that defendant committed those offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C).
All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
--------
Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. Prior to trial, defendant entered into a plea agreement. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the information was amended by interlineations to add count 9 charging defendant with the second degree robbery in violation of section 211 and alleging that defendant personally used a firearm in commission of the offense in violation of section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). The trial court accepted defendant's plea to count 9 and found the special allegations as to that count true. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant on count 9 to the upper term of five years, plus an additional 10-year sentence pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and a further additional 10-year sentence pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), for an aggregate term of 25 years. The trial court dismissed counts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We gave notice to defendant that his appointed counsel had not found 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 wanted us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
We examined the entire record to determine if there were any arguable issues on appeal. Based on that independent review, we have determined there are no arguable issues on appeal. We are therefore satisfied that defendant's appointed counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
______________
MOSK, J.
We concur:
_________________
TURNER, P. J.
_________________
ARMSTRONG, J.