People v. Tromp

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE HENRY TROMP, Defendant…

Court: Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.

Date published: Oct 27, 2003

A101967 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2003)

Opinion

A101967.

10-27-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE HENRY TROMP, Defendant and Appellant.

Haerle

Lawrence Tromp appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

A complaint filed in the consolidated court for Humboldt County charged appellant with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), attempted first degree robbery (§§ 664, 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) and carrying a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony (§ 12023). As to the count of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), the complaint further alleged that a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense, a sentencing enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)).

In a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded guilty to attempted first degree robbery (§§ 664, 211, 212.5 subd, (a)) and admitted that a principal was armed during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) with the understanding that the court would sentence him to three years in state prison. The court then granted the prosecutions motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint.

The court sentenced appellant to the middle term of two years in state prison for attempted first degree robbery (§§ 664, 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) and enhanced the term by one year because a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Thus, the aggregate term totaled the agreed three years in state prison. The court ordered appellant to pay a $600 restitution fine and ultimately granted him 104 days total presentence credit.

Before appellant entered his plea, the court advised him of the constitutional rights he would be waiving and the direct consequences of his plea. Appellant expressly waived his constitutional rights and knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and admitted the special allegation.

Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.

There was no sentencing error.

There are no issues that require further briefing.

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Lambden, J. and Ruvolo, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Penal Code.