Opinion
B229671
10-12-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICENTE TAPIA LARA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA090723) THE COURT:
DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
Vicente Tapia Lara, also known as Bonfil Vicente Tapia Lara and Vicente Bonfil, appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211) upon his no contest plea, evidenced in part by his execution of a "Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form." The trial court sentenced appellant to three years in state prison to run concurrently with a five-year sentence previously imposed in another case for which appellant was on probation at the time of the charged offense.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Because this matter was resolved by a plea, we take the facts from the preliminary hearing transcript.
--------
An amended information charged appellant with second degree robbery. The facts out of which the charges arose are as follows:
On the evening of May 22, 2010, Christine Yu (Yu) and her friend Mhin Ho (Ho) were at an arcade in Rowland Heights. When they left the arcade and were in the parking lot, appellant came at Yu and grabbed her purse. Yu had seen appellant in the arcade wandering around drunk. While Yu struggled with appellant to hold on to her purse, Ho kicked him and pushed him away.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no issues were raised. On June 27, 2011, 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 from appellant has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.