Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Malveaux 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E057517
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1202423)
CHRISTOPHER ERIC MALVEAUX, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jamie Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
On May 29, 2012, an amended felony complaint charged defendant and appellant
Christopher Eric Malveaux with two counts of felony robbery (Pen. Code, § 211,
counts 1 & 2), and one misdemeanor count of being under the influence of a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a), count 3). The complaint also alleged
that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of counts 1 and 2. (Pen.
Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b).)
On September 18, 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to count 1 and admitted the
personal gun use enhancement. In exchange, the parties agreed to a prison term of
12 years in state prison and the dismissal of the other charges and allegations.
On September 28, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to 12 years in state
prison, comprised of the low term of two years for the robbery conviction and a
consecutive 10-year term for the gun enhancement. The court dismissed the other
allegations and charges, and awarded defendant 151 days of actual credits and 22 days of
conduct credits.
On November 16, 2012, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from his
sentence or other matters after the plea.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The factual basis in this case was that “on April 30th, 2012, in Riverside County,
[defendant] robbed a person using a gun.”
2
ANALYSIS
After 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, setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to
undertake a review of the entire 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 conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
3