Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA303699, Sam Ohta, Judge.
Barbara Michel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
MANELLA, J.
Jose N. Lopez appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to attempted willful deliberate and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)), his admission that he personally and intentionally used a handgun within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and that he committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of and in association with a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after serving 15 years plus 10 years for the handgun enhancement.
Pursuant to the plea, two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder, three counts of assault with a firearm, one count of carrying a loaded firearm and three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and various enhancements were dismissed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The factual summary is taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
On April 16, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Miguel Centeno was with his friend Carlos Macias in the area of 1751 West Martin Luther King Boulevard in Los Angeles when he saw two men, one taller than the other, walk up to another friend, Fernando B. and pull up his shirt. Thinking the men were going to rob B., Mr. Centeno shouted at them to leave B. alone and that he was not a gang member. The taller man had a gun in his waist area and the shorter man grabbed it and shot at Mr. Centeno two or three times, hitting him in the leg. Mr. Centeno started running and the man then shot Mr. Macias. Mr. Centeno heard B. screaming and saw him on the ground. Mr. Macias identified appellant as the man who shot him. Six .45-caliber spent casings were recovered from the scene of the shooting.
According to medical records contained in the clerk’s transcript, Fernando B. was 16 years old.
On June 1, 2006, Los Angeles Police Officer Corey Farell executed a search warrant at appellant’s home. Appellant’s car was located at his residence and a black case containing a loaded .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun was found partially protruding from under the passenger seat of the car. From inside the residence, Officer Farell recovered several items of gang paraphernalia.
Following waiver of his Miranda rights, appellant stated he had been involved in a confrontation with two men. The two men went to retrieve what he believed to be a weapon so he retrieved a weapon he had stored in his car. When he observed the two men, one was armed but appeared to be having trouble with the handgun, making a motion as though he was attempting “to clear the slide portion of the semiautomatic handgun.” When appellant saw this, he began shooting at the two men. Appellant admitted to being a member of a gang formerly called “Addicted to Crime” but now known as “Alley Tiny Criminals.”
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
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.
Appellate counsel also wrote a letter to the superior court requesting the abstract of judgment be corrected as follows: “Item 5, ‘life with the possibility of parole on counts___’ should be checked, and the checked box next to 15-to-life should be removed from item 6a. [¶] Under ‘Other orders,’ on page 2, item 11, it should read that the defendant must serve a minimum of 15 years before he is paroled, pursuant to section 186.22(b)(5).”
On September 6, 2007, the trial court nunc pro tunc corrected its order accordingly and ordered an amended abstract of judgment be prepared and forwarded to the Department of Corrections.
On August 10, 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.
DISCUSSION
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.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., SUZUKAWA, J.