IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
December 23, 2010
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
SHAUN JAMES LEFLORE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. (Super.Ct.No. RIF141976)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richli J.
P. v. LeFlore CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant and appellant Shaun James LeFlore pled guilty to the sheet as set forth, post, with an 18-year maximum sentence. He was then sentenced to a total term of 13 years 8 months to state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
I FACTUAL BACKGROUND*fn1
Between 2007 and 2008, defendant induced his girlfriend, Jane Doe, to be a prostitute under his control and management. During that time, defendant frequently threatened to harm or kill Jane with a gun. He also physically assaulted her on a routine basis.
Jane eventually escaped from defendant's control and reported his actions to the police. Defendant was arrested on February 21, 2008.
Following a preliminary hearing, on August 24, 2009, a 11-count
second information was filed against defendant. The information
alleged one count of inflicting corporal injury resulting in a
traumatic condition upon Jane Doe (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a);*fn2
count 1); three counts of making criminal threats (§ 422;
counts 2, 4, & 6); two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd.
(a)(2); counts 3 & 11); one count of false imprisonment (§ 236; count
5); one count of procuring Jane Doe for the purpose of prostitution (§
266i; count 7); one count of pimping (§ 266h; count 8); and two counts
of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); counts 9 & 10). The
information also alleged that in the commission of counts 2, 3, and
11, defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd.
On March 8, 2010, defendant pled to the sheet and admitted the enhancement allegations. In return, defendant was promised an 18-year maximum lid.
The sentencing hearing was held on April 30, 2010. After argument from the parties and statements from Jane Doe and her parents, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 13 years 8 months with credit for time served to state prison as follows: one year on count 1, plus three years on count 3, plus an additional four years for the firearm use allegation attached to count 3; a concurrent term of two years on count 4; a consecutive eight months on count 5, plus an additional eight months on count 6; concurrent four-year terms on counts 7 and 8; a concurrent term of two years on count 9; a consecutive two years on count 10; and a consecutive one year on count 11, plus one year four months on the firearm use allegation attached to count 11. Sentence on count 2, as well as the attendant firearm use allegation, were stayed pursuant to section 654.
On May 20, 2010, defendant filed a notice of appeal based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. He did not request a certificate of probable cause.
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J. CODRINGTON J.*fn3