From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hatchett

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Feb 22, 2008
No. B198130 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAY HATCHETT, Defendant and Appellant. B198130 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fourth Division February 22, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court No. TA085626 of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.

Joan Wolff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

EPSTEIN, P.J.

Ray Hatchett appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of five counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and found to have personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). He was sentenced to prison for eight years and four months.

On the People’s motion, counts 4 and 5 relating to robberies committed on June 3, 2006, at a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant were consolidated with counts 1, 2 and 3 relating to robberies committed on June 5, 2006, at a Burger King restaurant.

The term consisted of the middle term of three years for count 1, plus one year for use of the knife. For counts 2 through 5, he was sentenced on each to one-third the middle term, or one year. For counts 2, 3, and 5 he was sentenced to one year for the deadly weapon enhancement, which was ordered stayed. On count 4, he was sentenced to one-third of one year, or four months, for use of the knife.

On January 17, 2007, appellant submitted a letter to the court claiming he did not commit the crime and was erroneously found guilty. He noted no fingerprints had been taken from the crime scenes. He additionally claimed photographs depicting the robber were not of him. The court considered appellant’s letter a motion for new trial and denied the motion. In denying the motion, the court noted it had listened to the witnesses and had seen their demeanor while testifying and that appellant had been identified as the robber by several different sources.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On June 3, 2006, Jose Carrillo was working at a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant on Main Street in Carson, stationed at a cash register, when appellant approached holding a knife. Maritza Gonzalez, a manager, told appellant not to harm anyone and to take the money. She opened the cash register and two other registers while appellant touched her with the knife. The knife was similar to a kitchen knife and was seven or eight inches long. After taking money from the registers, appellant ran out of the restaurant.

On June 5, 2006, Victor Garcia was working at a Burger King restaurant near the intersection of El Segundo and Main when appellant walked up to him, grabbed him by the shirt, put a sharp object on his back, and told him to open the cash register. When Mr. Garcia said he could not, appellant went to Mr. Garcia’s partner, Elias Chavira, and demanded that he open his cash register. Mr. Chavira did not know how to open the register and the manager, Carla Ewing, got involved. While holding a knife, appellant demanded that she open the registers, which she did. Appellant emptied the registers and told Ms. Ewing to go to the office and open the safe. Appellant then emptied the drawers of the safe and left the restaurant.

On July 13, 2006, appellant was arrested after he was seen at the same Burger King restaurant and identified as the robber.

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On October 30, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SUZUKAWA, J., WILLHITE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hatchett

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Feb 22, 2008
No. B198130 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Hatchett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAY HATCHETT, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2008

Citations

No. B198130 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2008)