P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6

Filed 4/29/13 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B242527 (Super. Ct. No. NA087907) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. JERRY RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Jerry Rodriguez appeals from the judgment following his plea of no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a))1 in which he admitted personally discharging a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personally inflicting great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The plea was based on police reports, a preliminary hearing transcript, and a probation report stating that appellant drank at a party, bragged that he was a gang member, and ejected after challenging people to fight. When appellant was told to calm down, he said "Who is going to be the first ones, motherfuckers" and drew a pistol from his waistband. Appellant shot Samuel Angulo in the stomach, fired a second at Edgar Camacho, and fled. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to 32 years state prison and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation 1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On January 23, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. YEGAN, J. We concur: GILBERT, P.J. PERREN, J. 2 Arthur Jean Jr. , Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________ California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Dee A. Ashi, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. 3