People v. Allen CA3

Filed 12/11/20 P. v. Allen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090480

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR- FECOD-2018-0013083) v.

AMARE COLUMBUS ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Amare Columbus Allen asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2018, R.D. texted a woman named Tasha Lorenzen and offered to pay her money for sex. Lorenzen arrived at R.D.’s apartment around 9:00 p.m. and R.D. gave her $200. Shortly thereafter, R.D. took off his clothes and lay on his bed. R.D. then

1

saw defendant standing in the doorway; defendant told R.D. not to move. Lorenzen collected personal property from R.D.’s apartment (which he shared with another man), then she and defendant left. After Lorenzen and defendant left, R.D. saw that his car also was taken. He called 911. After investigating, law enforcement arrested defendant and Lorenzen the following day. They asked R.D. to view their suspects. R.D. identified Lorenzen as the female robber and identified defendant with 80 to 90 percent certainty as the male robber. Following a preliminary hearing, the People charged defendant with numerous criminal offenses, including first degree residential robbery with a person present. The People also made numerous sentencing enhancement allegations, including a vulnerable victim, a prior prison term, and a prior strike offense. Defendant subsequently negotiated a plea agreement with the People wherein defendant would plead guilty to first degree robbery (without the person present allegation), admit to the vulnerable victim allegation, and admit to the prior strike offense. In exchange, the People would move to dismiss the balance of charges and alleged sentencing enhancements and would agree to an aggregate term of eight years in state prison for defendant’s conviction. The trial court advised defendant about his rights, including the right to a trial and the right not to testify; defendant waived those rights. The court asked defendant if he had been made any promises other than those made on the record, defendant responded, “No, sir.” The court also asked defendant if he understood the terms of his agreement, defendant responded he did, and whether defendant had any questions for his attorney or the court, to which defendant responded he did not. Defendant then pleaded guilty to first degree robbery, admitted the vulnerable victim enhancement, and admitted the prior strike offense.