THE PEOPLE v. JOSE CARVAJAL (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Defendant and appellant Jose Carvajal pled no contest to one count of attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 664 and 187) and one count of assault with the possibility of great bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted the truth of a gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(c).  He was sentenced to a total of 20 years in state prison.

The evidence at the preliminary hearing was that the victim of the attempted murder was a fifteen year old, Henry F., and that the victim of the assault was another individual, Ronald Dansby.

Henry F. testified that while he was walking home from his grandmother's house one evening, a white van followed him.   The passenger asked him where he was from.   Henry F. said that he was “from nowhere.”   The passenger pulled a gun and told Henry F. to approach.   Henry F. did so.   The passenger put the gun to Henry F.'s head and demanded everything he had in his pockets.   Henry F. complied, then began to yell.   The passenger grabbed Henry F. by his sweatshirt, pointed the gun at his throat, told him that he was going to die, and told the driver to drive toward an alley.   The driver, who was covering his face with his jacket or his hand, did so.   The passenger held on to Henry F. and pulled him along.   Henry F. was able to run away when the van stopped.   The passenger got out of the van and began shooting at him.   Henry F. was shot in the hand.

Ronald Dansby was walking in the same area a few days later, also in the evening.   A white van pulled up next to him and the passenger asked Dansby where he was from and whether he was a member of the Playboy Gangster Crips.   Dansby said that he was from nowhere.   The passenger got out of the van.   Dansby ran and hid.   The passenger pursued him, calling “come on out, PBG.” Dansby then heard shots.   Dansby's companion identified appellant, whom she knew, as the driver of the van.

Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Habell testified as an expert on gangs, to the effect that appellant was (as he had admitted to another officer) a gang member, and that the crimes were committed to create fear and intimidation in the community.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal.   On April 5, 2011, after examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.   Also on that date, counsel advised appellant that he could submit a supplemental brief on his own behalf, and indicated that she would send appellant a copy of the brief and a copy of the record on appeal.

On April 8, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit by brief or letter any argument or contention he wished this court to consider, and directed counsel to send a copy of the brief and of the record on appeal to appellant.   No response has been received from appellant to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant'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

We concur:

TURNER, P. J. MOSK, J.