IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
April 27, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
IVY LEE JONES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 09F06146)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye, P. J.
P. v. Jones
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
While victim Gorkem G. was in the process of purchasing a car from Samantha Y., two males ran up to G. and robbed him at gunpoint.*fn1 The males removed a stereo system from the trunk of G.'s car and fled. G. identified defendant Ivy Lee Jones as one of the perpetrators. They had met the night before the robbery, while G. and Y. were planning the purchase transaction.
Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5)*fn2 and admitted an allegation that a principal was armed with a handgun (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)).
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the stipulated low term of two years plus one year for the enhancement; awarded 267 days' custody credit and 40 days' conduct credit;*fn3 ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $800; and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL J. HOCH J.