THE PEOPLE v. MARTIN MENDOZA (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Martin Mendoza appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of second degree attempted robbery (Pen.Code, §§ 664, 211).¹  The trial court found to be true the allegation that Mendoza had suffered a prior felony within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 667, subdivision (a), and a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).  After denying Mendoza's Romero ² motion to dismiss the prior conviction, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate state prison term of nine years;  the midterm of two years for his conviction, doubled as a second strike and five years for the prior serious felony enhancement.

Mendoza's robbery conviction arose from the following facts:

On March 16, 2010, at approximately 2:15 p.m., Steven Lopez (Lopez) and his friend Danny Alvarez (Alvarez) rode bicycles to a liquor store in El Monte to get a soda.   Mendoza was standing in front of the store and asked Lopez where he was from.   Lopez was frightened by the question and said he did not bang.

Mendoza asked to see Lopez's eyeglasses, which Lopez gave to him to avoid a problem.   Mendoza followed Lopez and Alvarez into the liquor store where he asked Lopez to buy him a beer.   Lopez said he couldn't because he was under 21 years of age and had no money.   They then left the store.

Outside, Lopez asked for his glasses back twice.   Mendoza demanded, “Give me your bike.”   When Lopez declined, Mendoza tried to take it by placing one hand on the handlebar and the other on the seat.   Lopez and Mendoza struggled over the bicycle, but Lopez saw a pocket knife in Mendoza's closed fist and feared for his life.   He pulled hard on the bicycle, got it from Mendoza and rode away.

When Mendoza was subsequently detained, a search yielded a pocket knife that was identified by Lopez as the one he had seen during the charged incident.

We appointed counsel to represent Mendoza on appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised.   On January 19, 2011, we advised Mendoza that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Mendoza's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

FN2. People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero )..  FN2. People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero ).

THE COURT: * FN*.  BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN–GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.