People v. Costa CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Costa CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E060052
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1309969)
DANIEL JOAO COSTA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky L. Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Melanie K. Dorian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Daniel Costa is serving seven years in prison on his first strike after
pleading guilty to using a firearm to rob a man of his iPod. As discussed below, we
affirm his conviction.
1
On September 2, 2013, defendant used a Glock .45-caliber handgun to rob the
victim of his iPod.
On September 5, 2013, the People filed a three-count felony complaint alleging
defendant committed robbery (Pen. Code, §211),1 discharged a weapon at an inhabited
dwelling, occupied building or occupied motor vehicle (§ 246) and was a felon in
possession of a handgun (§ 29800, subd. (a)). As to the robbery and firearm discharge
charges, the People alleged defendant personally used a firearm(§12022.53, subd. (b)).
The People also alleged defendant had two prior “prison term” offenses (§ 667.5, subd.
(b)).
On September 20, 2013, defendant pled guilty to the robbery charge and admitted
a firearm enhancement under section 12022.5. The trial court sentenced him forthwith to
three years for the robbery plus four years consecutive for the firearm enhancement, and
dismissed the other charges and enhancements.
This appeal followed. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an
independent review of the record.
1 All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
3