Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA299063, Ruth Ann Kwan, Judge.
Diane E. Berley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
James Robinson appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to assault with a deadly weapon, a stick, (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and his admission that he previously was convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i) and 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for six years, consisting of the middle term of three years, doubled by reason of the Three Strikes law. A second count of assault with a deadly weapon was dismissed as were allegations of prior serious felonies (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)), prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and additional strikes. Appellant requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that on March 3, 2006, Jorge Valencia was working as a security supervisor at the Weingart Center in Los Angeles. He and two security officers had just asked an individual to leave the building and were standing outside the building, when appellant approached and started screaming “to leave [the] gentleman alone . . . .” Mr. Valencia told appellant, “This does not concern you, sir” and asked him to leave. Appellant appeared to be upset and left.
Appellant returned approximately five minutes later. When Mr. Valencia contacted appellant, appellant produced a wooden stick, approximately two feet in length, and struck Fernando Roberts, one of Mr. Valencia’s security officers. Mr. Valencia attempted to grab appellant and appellant struck him approximately three times in the face. Mr. Roberts brought appellant down to the floor, and appellant took a steak knife out of his pocket and cut Mr. Valencia’s arms. Appellant was wearing a full security uniform.
On June 15, 2006, and September 20, 2006, appellant’s Marsden motions were heard and denied.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On October 13, 2006, the public defender’s office declared a conflict and was relieved as attorney of record. Thereafter, the office of the alternate public defender was appointed.
On October 30, 2006, the office of the alternate public defender declared a conflict and was relieved. The court appointed Lawrence Sperber to represent appellant.
On January 2, 2007, appellant filed a motion to strike prior felony convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
On February 28, 2007, appellant’s Marsden motion was heard and denied.
On April 25, 2007, appellant’s Marsden motion was heard and denied.
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.
On December 5, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Thereafter, the letter sent December 5 was returned to this court with no forwarding address. Appointed counsel did not have a current location and the criminal locator indicated appellant was discharged and there was no current location information.
On February 13, 2008, appellant’s application for extension of time to file a supplemental brief was granted to and including April 14, 2008.
On June 16, 2008, appellant’s application filed June 13, 2008 for extension of time to file a supplemental brief was denied.
On July 7, 2008, appellant’s request that this court reconsider its ruling denying his request for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief was denied.
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, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN P. J., MANELLA, J.