Opinion
F078988
04-01-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO JAVIER GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
J. Edward Jones, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. BF170046A & BF171143A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John S. Somers, Judge. J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Hill, P.J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Alejandro Javier Gonzalez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Although we granted defendant an extension of time to file a brief, he ultimately did not do so. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2017, defendant, a felon, was stopped by police for riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the street without proper lighting. In a chase that ensued, defendant discarded an operational but unloaded handgun. Methamphetamine and a glass pipe were found on his person.
On February 1, 2018, defendant robbed an employee at an illegal internet casino at gunpoint. Police arrived and arrested defendant. His gun was operable and loaded.
In case No. BF170046A, on January 29, 2019, defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). Defendant admitted having suffered a prior "strike" conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
The same day, in case No. BF171143A, a jury found defendant guilty of robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c); count 1), criminal threats (§ 422; count 2), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29900, subd. (a); count 3). As to count 1, the jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.53, subd. (a)). As to all counts, the jury found not true the allegations that defendant committed the offenses to benefit a gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In a bifurcated bench trial, the court found true, as to all counts, the allegation that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The remaining allegations were dismissed.
On March 14, 2019, the trial court held a sentencing hearing on both cases. The court denied defendant's motions to dismiss the firearm use allegation, the prior strike conviction allegations, and the prior serious felony conviction allegations. The court then sentenced defendant to a total of 22 years four months in prison.
In case No. BF171143A, the court imposed six years (three years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law) on count 1, plus 10 years for personally using a firearm and five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court imposed and stayed four-year terms on both counts 2 and 3 (§ 654).
In case No. BF170046A, the court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon sentence of 16 months in prison (eight months, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law) on count 1, to be served consecutively to the sentence in case No. B171143A. On count 3, the court imposed a concurrent one-year jail term. The court awarded credits and imposed various fines and fees in both cases.
On March 15, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal, which we construed to be an appeal from the judgments in both cases.
After reviewing the record, we find no arguable error on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.