Opinion
E082603
10-10-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR DOMINGO MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF2204945. Randolph Rogers, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant Victor Domingo Mendoza got into an argument with his girlfriend. In the course of the altercation, defendant fired a gun and took the woman's cell phone and purse.
A jury found defendant guilty of four offenses: (i) robbery (Pen. Code, § 211,count 2); (ii) being a felon (defendant was convicted in 2008 of burglary of a dwelling) in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, count 3); (iii) carrying a loaded firearm in a public place (§ 25850, subd. (c)(1), count 4); and (iv) assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 5). It also found true a personal use of a firearm enhancement alleged in connection with count 5 (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b), 1192.7, (c)(8)). The jury found defendant not guilty of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, count 1). Defendant stipulated that he suffered a robbery strike in 2005.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 10 years consisting of (i) a three-year midterm sentence for the assault with a firearm, doubled because of the prior strike, (ii) a concurrent four-year term for the personal use of a firearm, (iii) a concurrent three-year sentence for the robbery, (iv) and one year each for being a felon in possession of a firearm and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, which were stayed pursuant to section 654. The court exercised its discretion not to impose a five-year sentence for the 2005 robbery and struck the 2008 burglary strike.
Defendant timely appealed the judgment and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth statements of the case and facts. Counsel considered two issues: (1) whether defendant's trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance by not moving to suppress defendant's statements on the ground of insufficient compliance with the warning requirements of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and (ii) whether defendant's trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance by not objecting to a lack of foundation for playing a Ring camera surveillance video.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (200) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MILLER J. RAPHAEL J.