Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County No. 1241558 Scott T. Steffen, Judge.
Matthew H. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Dawson, J. and Kane, J.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, Jarian Tarryl Roya, pled no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and admitted enhancement allegations that in committing that offense he personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court imposed a prison term of twenty years, consisting of seven years on the substantive offense, ten years on the firearm use enhancement and three years on the great bodily injury enhancement.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The court denied appellant’s request for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
Our factual statement is taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
On February 16, 2008, police officers were conducting surveillance for the purpose of observing illegal drug transactions when one of the officers observed the following. A car came to a stop at a stop sign, and a man approached the car and began punching the driver. The car then drove off at a high rate of speed. It returned approximately 10 minutes later at which time the officer, while videotaping the car, heard a gunshot as the car passed through his viewfinder. As the car kept traveling, the officer heard more shots.
The officer made contact with a person at the scene who appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to his back. This person told the officer he had been shot.
After the shooting, police officers drove off in pursuit of the car, but lost sight of it. However, approximately nine minutes after the shooting, police detectives found the car parked near a motel. There was no one in the car. Approximately nine minutes after finding the car, police observed appellant walk from the motel to the car, get in the car and try to hide in the back seat.
Police later spoke with appellant who stated that he had been punched while sitting in the car, and that after that incident, he (appellant) “went and got a gun and... came back and shot the victim.”
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.