Opinion
2d Crim. No. B229799 Super. Ct. No. BA368704-01
10-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAKURTIS DEANDRE THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Vanessa Place, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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)
Lakurtis Deandre Thomas appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of pandering by encouraging. (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(2).) Appellant waived trial by jury, and in a bifurcated hearing the trial court found two prior prison term allegations true. (Pen Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to a six-year upper term for pandering and two, one-year prior prison term enhancements, a total term of eight years in state prison. However, the abstract of judgment omits the enhancements and reflects an eight-year upper term for pandering. We remand and affirm.
FACTS
On February 11, 2011, Los Angeles Police Officers Emily Delph and her partner, Diana Danley, went to the corner of 48th Street and Figueroa in Los Angeles, in a well-known prostitution area, posing as prostitutes. Appellant drove by, made eye contact with Delph, returned, stopped the car and spoke with her. He told Delph that he needed another "white girl ho" to make money and turn tricks for him. He said that they would go to Vegas and make lots of money. He offered to protect her, provide her with food and clothing, and have her nails and hair done. After arresting appellant, officers found three cell phones. Text messages in those phones contained street vernacular associated with prostitution.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. On June 22, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. Appellant did not respond.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
We remand for correction of the abstract of judgment. The superior court clerk is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence (a six-year upper term for pandering and two, one-year prior prison term enhancements), and provide the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections.
We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Alex Ricciardulli, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.