Filed 6/20/16 P. v. Lincoln CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANK CR OMWELL LINCOLN,

Defendant and Appellant. B266095

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA134576)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

John T. Doyle, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather E. Shallenberger, under a ppointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________ __________________2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People charged Frank Cromwell Lincoln with making a criminal threat (Pen.

Code, § 422 subd. (a)) and battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd.

(d)). Lincoln pleaded not guilty.

Jury trial commenced on July 16, 2015. According to the evidence presented at

trial, Lincoln and his landlord, Vilma R ubio, had been involved in a protracted dispute

over his tenancy in her house. On occasion, the ongoing conflict became physical

, leading to calls to the police by both Lincoln and Rubio.

On July 23, 2014, while Rubio was in Lincoln’s room pursuant to an order by the

Department of Building and Safety, Lincoln grabbed Rubio. He said, “Bitch, don’t touch

my door because I can kill you,” and punched her. On August 4, 2014, Lincoln pushed a

shopping cart full of trash into the house. When Rubio objected and removed the cart to

the sidewalk, Lincoln became angry and punched Rubio in the face. Rubio fell and

briefly lost consciousness. She was transported to the hospital and treated for injuries to

her left eye, head and back. After an officer interviewed R ubio, Lincoln was arrested.

On August 7, 2014, Lincoln cursed and yelled at Rubio during an argument inside

the house. Lincoln raised his fist as if to strike Rubio and lunged toward her when she

was standing two feet away. Fearing Lincoln was about to hit her again, Rubio fled and

telephoned the police. When officers arrived, Rubio initially denied she had been

threatened by Lincoln because she was afraid. Later that night, Rubio and a tenant, who

had witnessed the incident, walked to the police stati on and described what had occurred

to the officers. The tenant told police that Lincoln had threatened to kill Rubio.

Lincoln testified in his defense. He claimed Rubio and the other tenant had

attacked him and denied striking or threatening Rubio with harm.

The jury found Lincoln guilty as charged. The trial court denied Lincoln’s motion

to reduce his criminal threat conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17,

subdivision (b). The court then suspended imposition of sentence and placed Li ncoln on

three years of probation, on condition he serve 365 days in county jail. Lincoln filed a

timely notice of appeal.3 DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Lincoln on appeal. After an examination of the

record, counsel filed an opening brie f in which no issues were raised. On March 1 7,

2016, we attempted to advise Lincoln by mail that he had 30 days in which to personally

submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On March 28, 2016, the

notice was returned marked “Return To Sender. Attempted

– Not Known. Unable To

Forward.” 1

We have examined the record and are satisfied Lincoln’s appellate attorney has

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. ( Smith v.

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112

- 113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

1 When appellat e counsel was appointed, Lincoln was directed “to keep the court informed of his/her mailing address at all times. If you move, you MUST notify the clerk of this court immediately; otherwise you may not receive important notices concerning your appeal.” Lincoln failed to provide any updated information concerning his address.