People v. Kendall CA2/7 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 5/21/21 P. v. Kendall 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                 B309172
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. NA115096)
    v.
    SHANE T. KENDALL,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Daniel J. Lowenthal, Judge. Affirmed.
    Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    _______________
    Shane T. Kendall appeals from the judgment entered after
    he pleaded no contest to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)
    and was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated agreement to
    three years of formal probation on condition he serve one day in
    county jail and perform 30 days of alternative work service. No
    arguable issues have been identified following review of the
    record by Kendall’s appointed appellate counsel or our own
    independent review. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Kendall’s plea was entered prior to the preliminary
    hearing. According to the information in his probation report,
    Kendall approached Lorena Bernal and several of her friends on
    the evening of August 14, 2020 and asked if they wanted to get
    tacos with him. Bernal and her friends did not know Kendall;
    they asked him to leave them alone. Kendall persisted. Bernal
    and the others began recording Kendall with their smartphones,
    and Bernal unsuccessfully asked individuals walking past the
    group for assistance. As Bernal continued recording Kendall, he
    pushed her to the ground, grabbed her phone from her hand and
    fled.
    Officers from the Long Beach Police Department responded
    to the report of a robbery. After obtaining Bernal’s statement,
    officers located Kendall in the area and detained him. When
    asked about taking Bernal’s phone, Kendall stated, “Oh yah.
    Somebody recorded me, and I just grabbed it and ran.” Kendall
    said he threw the phone away in a nearby alley. He denied
    pushing Bernal.
    Kendall was charged in a felony complaint filed August 18,
    2020 with one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). On
    September 29, 2020 Kendall pleaded no contest to the charge
    2
    pursuant to People v. West (1970) 
    3 Cal.3d 595
    . Pursuant to a
    negotiated agreement the court stayed imposition of sentence and
    placed Kendall on three years of formal probation on condition he
    serve one day in county jail (with credit for time served) and
    perform 30 days of service in the Probation Adult Alternative
    Work Services program (PAAWS). On November 10, 2020 the
    court ordered Kendall to pay $440.26 in victim restitution to
    Bernal.
    Kendall’s trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal,
    checking the box that stated Kendall’s appeal challenged the
    validity of his plea. Kendall’s request for a certificate of probable
    cause was not granted.
    DISCUSSION
    We appointed counsel to represent Kendall on appeal.
    After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
    On April 2, 2021 counsel wrote Kendall and advised him that
    counsel intended to file a no-issue brief and that Kendall
    personally could submit his own supplemental letter brief in
    which he identified any contentions or issues he wished us to
    consider. We sent a similar notice to Kendall on April 5, 2021.
    We have received no response.
    We have reviewed the entire record in this case and are
    satisfied appellate counsel for Kendall has complied with
    counsel’s responsibilities and there are no arguable issues.
    (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 277-284; People v. Kelly
    (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , 441-442.)
    3
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    PERLUSS, P. J.
    We concur:
    SEGAL, J.
    FEUER, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B309172

Filed Date: 5/21/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/21/2021