From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vasquez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Mar 21, 2008
No. B199385 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERARDO VASQUEZ et al., Defendants and Appellants. B199385 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division March 21, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. KA076914 Daniel J. Buckley, Judge.

Cynthia A. Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Gerardo Vasquez.

Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Nelson Enrique Perez.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

In a joint jury trial, Gerardo Vasquez and Nelson Perez were convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), during which Vasquez personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.53, subd. (b)) and Perez was armed with a firearm (id., § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The convictions arose from an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of August 14, 2006, when defendants approached a man sitting in his car getting ready to go to work, Vasquez displayed a gun and demanded the victim’s money, and defendants fled after the victim complied with the demand. Vasquez and Perez were also each charged with carjacking and two counts of robbery arising from a separate incident. The jury was unable to reach verdicts on the counts arising from the separate incident, which were dismissed in furtherance of justice. Vasquez was sentenced to the middle term of 3 years for robbery with a 10-year enhancement for firearm use. Perez was sentenced to the middle term of 3 years for robbery with a 1-year enhancement for a principal being armed.

Mohamad Elhhawary was tried as a participant with Vasquez and Perez in this incident and was convicted of robbery and felony evading an officer while driving recklessly. He is not a party to this appeal.

Vasquez and Perez each filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed separate counsel to represent them and counsel in each case filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) Upon the filing of each brief, we sent letters to defendants and to their counsel in which we directed counsel immediately to forward the appellate record to his or her client and informed defendants that within 30 days they could personally submit any contentions or issues that they wished us to consider. The 30-day periods have passed and no response has been received from either defendant.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants’ counsel have fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

We concur: VOGEL, J., ROTHSCHILD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Vasquez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Mar 21, 2008
No. B199385 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Vasquez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERARDO VASQUEZ et al.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Mar 21, 2008

Citations

No. B199385 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2008)