Opinion
2d Crim. B324956
08-17-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Order Filed 8/21/2023
Superior Court County of Los Angeles, No. TA139085, Laura R. Walton, Judge
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
The opinion filed in the above-entitled matter on August 17, 2023 is modified as follows:
On page one, the Superior Court case number is amended to read TA139085 instead of TA138085.
This modification does not change the judgment.
Yegan, Acting P.J. Cody, J. Baltodano, J.
CODY, J.
Luis Gomez appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)), and two counts of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 211, 664). As to one of the attempted robbery counts, appellant admitted allegations that the crime was committed for the benefit of his criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)) and that a gang principal discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) &(e)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 26 years and 8 months in state prison.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Because appellant pleaded no contest, the facts are derived from the probation report. On November 16, 2015, appellant and an accomplice attempted to steal several items from a liquor store. Store employee Bryan Jaime and customer Alfredo Alvarado helped detain appellant while his accomplice left in a Toyota. Appellant told Jaime and Alvarado that he was a member of the 18th Street gang and that they would regret what they were doing. The Toyota circled back and an individual got out, entered the store, and shot Alvarado and Jaime, killing Alvarado. Appellant and the shooter then fled in the Toyota.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On May 23, 2023, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P. J., BALTODANO, J.