People v. Pinski CA4/3

Filed 10/7/14 P. v. Pinski 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049348

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13NF2432)

HENRY JOHN PINSKI, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, W. Michael Hayes and Greg L. Prickett, Judges. Affirmed. Melanie K. Dorian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Henry John Pinski of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) He was sentenced to a prison term of three years, and ordered to pay restitution, fines, and fees. He filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts and the disposition of the case. She did not argue against defendant, but advised she had not found any issues to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) To assist us in our independent review of the record, she suggested we consider whether the court erred by denying defendant’s request to represent himself, and whether his robbery conviction is supported by substantial evidence. Defendant then filed a supplemental brief which discusses the two issues suggested by counsel, argues the court erred by denying his request for a different court appointed lawyer, and asserts his trial counsel was ineffective. Because these specific issues were raised by defendant himself, we will address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) We have examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues are present and have found none. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.) FACTS A. Prosecution Evidence. About 6:00 p.m., on July 15, 2013, Regaul Karim was working at a 7- Eleven in Anaheim, when he saw defendant take a burrito and a sandwich and place them under his black jacket. Karim believed defendant was stealing these items. Karim followed defendant and also saw him take a cake from another aisle and place it under his clothing. Karim confronted defendant, stuck out his hand and said, “Whatever you take, just give it to me.” Defendant then struck Karim in the face, dropped the cake and ran out of the store.