People v. Robertson CA2/2 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/9/14 P. v. Robertson CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          B252840
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BA411743)
    v.
    BRIAN ROBERTSON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT:*
    Appellant Brian Robertson (Robertson) appeals from the judgment of conviction
    following a jury trial.
    Prosecution’s Case
    John Trussell (Trussell) works for the Department of Water and Power. On
    May 24, 2013, he was on his way to turn in his work truck when he stopped to get
    something to drink. While waiting in line at the store, Trussell noticed Robertson
    because he looked disheveled. Trussell saw Robertson walk to the back of the store, pick
    up a 12-pack of beer, and walk outside with it. When Trussell told Robertson that he had
    to pay for the beer, Roberston walked back in and up to the register. Pedro Crisanto
    *        BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
    (Crisanto), who was working the register, noticed that Robertson had something in his
    hand that resembled a knife. Crisanto told Robertson that there were cameras everywhere
    and warned him not to do anything stupid. Giving Trussell dirty looks, Robertson went
    outside then returned and swung at Trussell. Trussell thought Robertson was holding a
    knife. Trussell quickly grabbed Roberston’s wrist and, as they struggled, they ended up
    outside. Trussell was able to get Robertson on the ground and both Trussell and Crisanto
    detained him until police arrived. Trussell later realized that Robertson had a pair of
    scissors in his hand, not a knife.
    Defense Case
    A few days before the incident, Robertson had been attacked; he got a pair of
    scissors for self-defense. On the day of the incident, Robertson was very drunk; thus, he
    testified that he could not remember much of what took place. He did remember that
    Trussell was very confrontational.
    Robertson testified that he never tried to stab anyone before.
    The surveillance video did not show whether Robertson had scissors in his hand
    when he swung at Trussell.
    Proceedings
    An information charged Robertson with assault with a deadly weapon, in violation
    of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). It was further alleged that Robertson had
    suffered a prior prison term pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
    The jury found Robertson guilty as charged. He waived his constitutional right to
    a jury and a court trial on his prior and admitted it as true. On November 1, 2013, after
    the trial court denied his motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, it sentenced
    Robertson to four years in state prison, consisting of the midterm of three years and an
    additional year on the enhancement. He received 324 days of custody credit.
    This timely appeal ensued.
    2
    Appeal
    Counsel was appointed to represent Robertson in connection with this appeal.
    After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no arguable
    issues were raised. On May 23, 2014, we advised Robertson that he had 30 days within
    which to personally submit any contentions or issues for us to consider. No response has
    been received to date.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Robertson’s appellate
    counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.
    (People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , 441 (Wende).) Accordingly, we conclude that
    Robertson has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our
    review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
    entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 278; People v.
    Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 123-124.)
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B252840

Filed Date: 9/9/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021