Opinion
H037883
07-18-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT ORTIZ LONGORIA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC948730)
Defendant Robert Ortiz Longoria was charged by information with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and alleged to have suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1192.7), one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He pleaded no contest to the crime and admitted the prior conviction allegations. The trial court exercised its discretion to strike the strike allegation and sentenced defendant to prison for seven years.
Hereafter, unspecified section references are to the Penal Code.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2009, codefendant Marcos Cruz entered a bank and demanded cash. He escaped with over $5,000. Cruz and defendant Longoria were located in South San Francisco shortly thereafter in possession of the stolen money.
Defendant was charged as described above. He did not waive his right to a speedy trial. The trial court set trial for February 8, 2010, which was within the 60 days allowed by section 1382. On the day set for trial counsel appeared, waiving defendant's presence. The trial was continued to March 29, 2010. Trial was continued a second time. On April 1, 2010, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial, suspended proceedings, and appointed mental health professionals to examine defendant. (§§ 1368, 1369.)
Defendant was declared competent on July 7, 2010. On September 22, 2010, defendant's attorney declared a conflict and new counsel was appointed. New counsel filed a motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial right under section 1382. The prosecutor filed opposition. The trial court denied the motion on December 13, 2010. Thereafter, defendant pleaded no contest and was sentenced to prison. He requested and received a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That time has expired without a response from defendant.
II. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_______________
Premo, Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR: _______________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.
________
Judge of the Monterey County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
--------