THE PEOPLE v. KYLE DEESE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KYLE DEESE, Defendant and Appellant.

F061986

Decided: October 27, 2011

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINIONFACTS

The following was alleged in an information filed August 23, 2010.   Appellant, Kyle Deese, committed second degree robbery (Pen.Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)); 1  he had suffered two “strikes” 2 and one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1);  and he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).  On January 11, 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to the robbery charge and admitted the prior serious felony enhancement allegation.   One of the terms of the plea agreement was that appellant would receive a prison sentence of seven years.

On February 8, 2011, the court dismissed the strike and prior prison term enhancement allegations and imposed a seven-year prison term, consisting of the two-year lower term on the substantive offense and five years on the prior serious felony enhancement.   On February 24, 2011, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.   Insofar as the record reveals, appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.)   Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.   We will affirm.

The report of the probation officer states that according to reports of the Porterville Police Department (PPD), on July 21, 2010, PPD officers, responding to a report of a robbery, made contact with J.W., who told them the following:  Appellant and his co-defendant, Heriberto Gonzalez approached J.W. as he was walking down the street and asked him if he “ ‘banged.’ ”   J.W. said he did not, at which point appellant forcibly grabbed a gold chain from J.W.'s neck and told him “not to tell anybody or [appellant] would find him.”

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code..  FN1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FN2. We use the term “strike” as a synonym for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i);  1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law..  FN2. We use the term “strike” as a synonym for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i);  1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.

THE COURT * FN*.  Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.