THE PEOPLE v. KENNETH CARRELL (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Kenneth E. Carrell appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) ¹ with use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and assault with a firearm with a use enhancement (§§ 245, subd. (a)(2);  12022.53, subd. (a).)  In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant admitted suffering a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i);  1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and four prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).  The trial sentenced appellant to 23 years 4 months state prison and ordered appellant to pay $932 victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and a $60 court security fee (§ 1465.8) and a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov.Code, § 70373).

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

On November 12, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.   On November 22, 2010, we received a letter from appellant stating, among other things, that the conviction is not supported by the evidence.

The evidence shows that appellant beat and robbed Rebecca Peterson on April 24, 2009, after she walked to her car near the USC campus.   Appellant struck the victim in the face and took her purse, money, and keys.

After the victim screamed for help and attempted to call 911, appellant beat the victim with a handgun, took her cell phone, and fled on a black beach cruiser bike.

A week later, officers detained appellant eight blocks from the robbery scene.   Appellant matched a composite sketch of the robbery suspect and had a black beach cruiser bike.   Following appellant's arrest, the victim identified the bike and identified appellant in a six-pack photo lineup, at the preliminary hearing, and at trial.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable

issues exist.  (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124;  People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Ann Krauz, Attorney,for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

FOOTNOTES

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

GILBERT, P.J. PERREN, J. San Ohta, Judge