People v. McCoy CA2/2

Filed 1/18/22 P. v. McCoy CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B312575

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA094415) v.

KENNETH JAY MCCOY,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: In a felony complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Kenneth Jay McCoy was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1)1 and unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2). On March 18, 2021, defendant pled no contest to count 1. Count 2 was dismissed.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in state prison. Defendant received 53 days credit. The court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court imposed but stayed a $300 parole revocation fine. (§ 1202.45.) Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which no arguable issues were raised. On October 12, 2021, we informed defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. To date, we have received no response. We have independently examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.)