People v. Dobbs CA2/1

Filed 7/14/16 P. v. Dobbs CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B267918

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA433839) v.

CEDRIC DOBBS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carol H. Rehm, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Elana Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

A jury convicted Cedric Dobbs of second degree robbery and Dobbs admitted various allegations based upon his prior convictions and prison terms. The trial court sentenced Dobbs to seven years in prison, consisting of two years for the robbery and five years for a prior serious felony enhancement. The robbery conviction was based upon a February 17, 2015 incident at a Home Depot store in Los Angeles. Store security personnel observed Dobbs placing the store’s merchandise inside a messenger bag. After Dobbs exited without paying for the merchandise, security personnel attempted to detain him. He pulled one officer to the ground, then repeatedly kicked, spat at, and attempted to bite the officer. Dobbs scratched the officer’s hand, leaving a one-inch scar. Defendant filed a timely appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On May 11, 2016, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.