People v. Henson CA4/3

Filed 9/25/14 P. v. Henson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049599

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF1578)

JONATHAN HENSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dan McNerney, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Appellant Jonathan Henson was convicted by a jury of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215) and it was found to be true that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to the low- term of three years for the carjacking and 10 years was added for the firearm conviction. He filed a timely appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. While not arguing against appellant, counsel filed a brief which fully set forth the facts of the case and advised us there were no arguable issues on appeal. The brief included a review of the record and consideration of possible arguments, but concluded none of those arguments had any chance of success. We informed appellant he had 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. More than three months have passed, and we have received no such argument, so it appears he does not intend to file one. We have reviewed the record of appellant’s trial and the brief filed by his counsel. We can find no flaw in the court’s actions in this case, and find ourselves in agreement with appellate counsel: There is no arguable error in the proceedings against appellant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) FACTS Late one night in 2006, Nguyen Vu got into his 2001 BMW. He noticed three men in their early twenties walking toward him, two apparently Hispanic, the third apparently Caucasian, all wearing sweatshirts. One knocked on his window. As Vu rolled down the window, the man ordered him out of the car and showed the semiautomatic handgun with which he had knocked on the window. He told Vu he would shoot him if he did not get out of the car. When Vu did so, the man told him to go home. The three men got into the car and drove off. Police found the BMW three hours later. There was a high-speed chase which ended when the BMW crashed into a planter. The four Hispanic men in the car