THE PEOPLE v. SOLOMON SIAKI MAOTI (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Soloman Siaki Maoti appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial.   Defendant was convicted of attempted second degree robbery (Pen.Code, §§ 211, 664) during which he inflicted great bodily injury (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and battery with serious bodily injury (id., § 243, subd. (d)).  The trial court sentenced him to state prison for a term of five years.   We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2010, Norman Steffeck, who was homeless, was sleeping on the ground near his mountain bike.   Steffeck was awakened at around 1:30 a.m. by defendant, who was attempting to take Steffeck's bike.   Defendant threatened to hurt Steffeck if he attempted to interfere.   Ignoring the threat, Steffeck struggled with defendant over the bike.   At one point, defendant shoved the bike into Steffeck, causing him to fall to the ground.   Steffeck's two companions, Kelly Holley and Christopher Tio, woke up.   Tio, who was armed with a pocket knife, lunged at defendant, who blocked the blow with his arm, and then fled.   Holly telephoned police.

Long Beach police arrived at the scene and obtained a description of the suspect.   Defendant was detained shortly thereafter.   Tio and Holley were taken for a field identification, where they identified defendant.

Steffeck was taken to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a broken femur.   He required surgery, and three screws were put into his hip.   He was in the hospital for two weeks.   When he was released, he was using crutches and required physical therapy.   While in the hospital, he identified defendant from a photographic lineup.

Defendant testified in his own defense that Tio was the aggressor.   When defendant refused to give Holley and Steffeck some change, Tio appeared and attacked him with a knife.   Defendant blocked the knife and then fled.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.   (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)   On February 16, 2011, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.   We have received no response to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277–284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118–119;  People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.