From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Feb 8, 2011
No. B224873 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SA072312 Katherine Mader, Judge.

Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


WOODS, J.

When Sam Weston came home he encountered defendant Rodolfo Garcia leaving with Weston’s property. Defendant was thereafter arrested and charged by information with residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), with special allegations he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction (robbery) within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subdivision (a). Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and denied the special allegations.

A jury convicted defendant of residential burglary. Defendant elected to waive his right to a jury trial and have a bench trial on the special allegations. Following a bench trial, the court found true the prior conviction allegations.

At sentencing, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1385, People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497). It then imposed an aggregate state prison term of nine years, consisting of the lower term of four years (the lower term of two years doubled under the Three Strikes law) plus five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. The court ordered defendant to pay a $30 security fee and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Defendant was awarded 287 days of presentence credit (249 actual days and 38 days of conduct credit).

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On November 4, 2010, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., ZELON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Feb 8, 2011
No. B224873 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODOLFO GARCIA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

Citations

No. B224873 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)