Opinion
B232767
01-23-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD TOY, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SA075169)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Chester Horn, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Edward Toy appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) Finding no error, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 16, 2010, David Union was working for Able Auto Adjusters as a repossessor. At about 1:30 that afternoon, he went to a parking lot in El Segundo to repossess a Volkswagen Beetle. He arrived at the lot in a tow truck and located the car. As there was a vehicle parked in front of the Volkswagen, Union pulled the tow truck behind it. As Union approached the Volkswagen, he noticed defendant sitting in the driver's seat. Defendant got out and stood by the driver's door. Union told defendant he was there to repossess the Volkswagen. Defendant replied Union was not going to take the car and invited Union to call the police.
Union told defendant he had a repossession order for the car and that defendant could retrieve any personal items he had inside. Defendant became angry and repeated that Union was not going to take the car. As defendant advanced, Union backed up, reached for a can of mace that he had in his pocket, and said he would call the police if he had to. Defendant said to go ahead, and Union called 911. Defendant returned to the Volkswagen and sat down in the driver's seat.
As Union was on the phone, the car in front of the Volkswagen started to leave. With phone in hand, Union walked to the front of the Volkswagen in order to prevent defendant from driving away. Defendant began to maneuver the car out of the parking space, so Union moved to block defendant's path. Defendant accelerated forward and hit Union on his left knee with the Volkswagen's bumper, causing him to fall to the pavement. Union grabbed the driver's door handle and was able to open the door as defendant was driving away. Union pulled out his mace and sprayed it in the direction of the driver's window, which was open two or three inches. Union let go of the car and retrieved his phone. The Hawthorne police were still on the line. Union informed police personnel that defendant had tried to run him over with the Volkswagen. He got into the tow truck and followed defendant. As he followed the Volkswagen, Union advised police of the direction he was traveling. He saw police stop defendant on the freeway.
A CD of Union's 911 call to the police was played in open court.
Elizabeth Martin testified on behalf of the defense. She was familiar with the Volkswagen and said she recalled a time when she was unable to roll down one of the windows after the car was involved in an accident.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record, defendant's counsel filed an opening brief and requested that this court independently review the record for appellate issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel filed a declaration wherein he stated that he had sent defendant a letter advising him of the nature of the brief, a copy of the brief, and the record.
On October 6, 2011, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues that he wished us to consider. On November 4, 2011, we received an affidavit from defendant, wherein he set forth alleged facts, all of which are outside the record on appeal.
We have independently reviewed the record. We are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our independent review of the record, received effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J. We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J. WILLHITE, J.