Opinion
F060694
08-01-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGOSOM GEBRE, Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. F09906597)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Franson, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted appellant, Angosom Gebre, of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and found true an enhancement allegation that appellant personally used a firearm in committing that offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). Appellant admitted an enhancement allegation that he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed a prison term of 16 years, consisting of the five-year upper term on the robbery, 10 years on the firearm use enhancement, and one year on the prior prison term enhancement.
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Facts
Jatinder Singh testified he was working at a liquor store in Fresno on November 22, 2009, when, at approximately midnight, the following occurred: Appellant removed a bottle of vodka from the shelf and asked how much it cost. Singh responded that he had to check the price. He did so, "and then [appellant] pull[ed] out" a shotgun and "asked [Singh] for money." Singh handed appellant the currency in the cash register. At that point, appellant "asked [Singh] for a bottle of Henessy," [sic] Singh "took the bottle ... and g[a]ve it to him," and appellant left the store.
The store's surveillance video and an audio recording of the video were played for the jury. A transcript of the audio recording was admitted into evidence. According to the transcript, appellant said to Singh, among other things, "Look at my shotgun"; "Give me all the money you ... got"; and "I'll blow your ... brains ... out."
Appellant testified to the following: At the time of the robbery, he was at his sister's house, "chilling." His sister did not want to testify because she was afraid she would "get set up Appellant had suffered a prior conviction of a "theft-related offense." In that case, he pled guilty because he "did it." He was "taking this case to trial" "[b]ecause [he] didn't do it."
Motion for Appointment of Substitute Counsel
Two weeks prior to trial, the court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion for the appointment of substitute counsel, with the prosecutor not present. In response to questioning by the court, appellant stated the following: he felt that he and his counsel, Marina Pincus, were "not getting along" and were "not on the same page." Pincus was "not advising [appellant] about his case" and he did not know "what's going on." He thought Pincus was "working against" him. When Pincus visited him she "don't really talk about nothing."
Pincus, in response to the court's invitation to respond, described the work she had done on the case, which included meeting with appellant, discussing with him the possibility of appellant's sister testifying, "[making] numerous attempts to have the sister talk to us," having the transcript of appellant's interrogation by police prepared, telling appellant he needed to wear "trial clothes," and "[going] through the entire process" with appellant. She also stated that at the end of each of their jail visits she "always asked him if he had any questions
In response, appellant said, "she ain't never really showed me none of the process, none at all."
Pincus further stated she thought there had not been a "breakdown in the attorney-client relationship .... "
The court, in denying appellant's motion, found as follows: "[T]here are no real allegations with regard to Ms. [Pincus's] representation other than what appears to be some questions on the part of [appellant] regarding the jury trial process"; Pincus "has attempted to talk to him about that and has asked him to let her know if he has any questions about any of the process and he has apparently not had any questions"; and "there has not been a complete breakdown in the relationship with the client and attorney such that it would make it impossible for Ms. Pincus to represent [appellant]
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.