Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. NA077010, Charles D. Sheldon, Judge.
Lea Rappaport Geller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JACKSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Ardell Jones appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The trial court sentenced defendant to the lower term of two years in state prison. Defendant was awarded 107 days of presentence credit (94 actual days and 13 days of conduct credit) and ordered to pay a security fee of $20 and a restitution fine of $200. A parole revocation fine was imposed and stayed (id., § 1202.45).
Defendant was also sentenced to a concurrent two-year term in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. NA080129 after pleading no contest to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and to possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)) in an open plea to the court.
FACTS
Defendant removed a bottle of liquor from an Albertsons grocery store and left without paying for it. Max Martinez (Martinez), the store’s loss prevention officer, realized defendant had hidden the bottle in his waistband and followed him out of the store. Martinez stopped defendant and asked him to return the bottle. Defendant charged Martinez and repeatedly punched him. The two men struggled until other store employees helped Martinez restrain defendant until police arrived. Martinez suffered a dislocated shoulder during the altercation with defendant.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 8, 2009, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response 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, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.