People v. Rigney CA2/7 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/16/24 P. v. Rigney CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B332737
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA084080)
v.
JOSE ANDREW RIGNEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Affirmed.
David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
INTRODUCTION
Jose Andrew Rigney appeals following his plea of no contest
to making criminal threats. We appointed counsel to represent
Rigney in this appeal. Rigney’s appointed counsel reviewed the
record and did not identify any arguable issues. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Nor, after reviewing the record
independently, have we. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In an information, the People charged Rigney with three
felony counts of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422,
subd. (a); counts 2, 3 and 4)1; one count of felony vandalism
(§ 594, subd. (a), (b)(1); count 5); and one misdemeanor count of
violating a civil restraining order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 6).
The criminal threat counts involved the same victim, Alyssa
Vernon, for various alleged incidents during 2022. The
vandalism count alleged Rigney maliciously damaged the
property of another victim, Anthony Vernon. As to all felony
counts, the information alleged two aggravating factors within
the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1) and
(b)(1). As to the criminal threat counts, the information further
alleged one aggravating factor within the meaning of California
Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(6).
On June 9, 2023, following advisement and waiver of his
constitutional rights, Rigney, represented by counsel, entered a
plea of no contest to making a criminal threat (§ 422, subd. (a);
count 2). He also admitted one aggravating factor, namely that
he took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit
the offense, in violation of California Rules of Court,
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
rule 4.421(a)(11). Rigney stipulated to liability for restitution for
all charged counts, including those dismissed as part of the plea
agreement, pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The trial court accepted Rigney’s plea and admission.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Rigney to
the three-year upper term on count 2, based on Rigney’s
admission of the aggravating factor, and dismissed the remaining
counts. (§ 18, subd. (a); § 1170, subd. (b)(2).) The court awarded
Rigney a total of 648 days of custody credit. Rigney was ordered
to obey the 10-year protective order the court issued protecting
Alyssa, April, and Anthony Vernon, and minor Anthony V. The
court ordered Rigney to pay a $300 restitution fee, a $300 parole
revocation restitution fee, a $30 criminal conviction facilities
assessment fee, and a $40 court security fee.
On December 4, 2023, the court ordered Rigney to pay
restitution in the stipulated amount of $3,800 to Anthony Vernon
pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f).2
Rigney filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging only the
sentencing and/or other matters occurring post-plea. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(B).)
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record, counsel for Rigney filed an
opening brief raising no issues. According to counsel’s
declaration, Rigney has been released from custody, Rigney has
not contacted counsel, and counsel has been unable to obtain a
current address for Rigney. On June 4, 2023, this court sent
Rigney a notice, care of his trial counsel, that he may file a
2 We take judicial notice on our own motion of the trial
court’s December 4, 2023 minute order. (Evid. Code, § 452,
subd. (d).)
3
supplemental brief or letter within 30 days of the notice stating
any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments that he
wished for this court to consider. We have not received a
response, and Rigney has not updated this court with his current
contact information. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.32(a).)
We have examined the record and are satisfied that
appellate counsel for Rigney has complied with her
responsibilities and that there are no arguable issues. (See
Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
STONE, J.
We concur:
MARTINEZ, P. J.
SEGAL, J.
4