Opinion
B306554
02-26-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HOLYZION HEAVENLY NEWJERUSALEM, Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Keith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA478303) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Andrea Keith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Defendant Holyzion Heavenly Newjerusalem appeals from the judgment following her conviction for second degree robbery. Defendant's appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant entered a convenience store, took several bottles of coffee beverage from a refrigerator, and placed them in a bag she was carrying. Defendant had attempted to take items from the store without paying on two prior occasions, so a store employee approached her and asked her to take the items out of her bag. Defendant denied having anything in her bag. The employee tried to take the bottles from her bag, and defendant struggled with him. Defendant poured a bottle of liquid bleach on the employee, hitting his pants.
An amended information charged defendant with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and alleged an enhancement for personal use of a dangerous or deadly weapon, namely, the bleach (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The information further alleged defendant had suffered two prior convictions, one in 1991 and one in 2018, subjecting her to sentencing under the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12) and a prior conviction enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
Unspecified statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
A jury convicted defendant of the robbery charge and found the weapon enhancement allegations true. Defendant waived jury trial on her prior conviction allegations, and the trial court found those allegations true. The trial court further found defendant had violated probation.
The trial court sentenced defendant to four years, the low term of two years doubled because of the 2018 prior strike conviction. The trial court struck the 1991 prior strike conviction, and dismissed both the weapon enhancement and the prior conviction enhancement. The court imposed fines and fees and awarded credits. The court ordered defendant to serve 365 days in county jail for the probation violation, but credited her for time served.
DISCUSSION
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Her appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) This court advised defendant of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. She filed none.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issue. Appointed counsel has fully complied with counsel's responsibilities and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BENDIX, Acting P. J. We concur:
CHANEY, J.
Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------