People v. Wright CA5

Filed 2/17/26 P. v. Wright CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088428 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF198015A) v.

LELAND JAMES WRIGHT, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Harrell, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Leland James Wright was charged with one felony count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)),1 and one misdemeanor count of making a false representation of identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). As to count 1, it was also alleged appellant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction (strike) (§ 667, subd. (e)), and that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). Further, four aggravating circumstances were alleged for the purposes of sentencing. A jury found appellant guilty of both substantive counts. During a bifurcated court trial, the court found true beyond a reasonable doubt the prior strike allegation (§ 667, subd. (e)) and the prior serious felony conviction enhancement allegation (id., subd. (a)). The court also found true beyond a reasonable doubt three aggravating-circumstance allegations. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court struck the prior strike allegation, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 10 years, consisting of the upper term of five years for the robbery conviction (§ 213, subd. (a)(2)), plus five years for the prior serious conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). After imposing sentence, the court suspended its execution, and ordered appellant be placed on probation for 10 years (§ 1203.1, subds. (a), (l)(1)), contingent on successful completion of the Jericho in-patient drug rehabilitation program. After the sentencing hearing, appellant filed a notice of appeal, requesting court- appointed counsel. Counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal, and counsel filed a Wende2 brief. Appellant was afforded an opportunity to raise any issues on his own, but he has not done so. We have independently reviewed the entire record and, finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.