Filed 8/27/13 P. v. Lockhart CA5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ROBERT LEE LOCKHART, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

F065228 

(Fresno Super. Ct. Nos. F11906070 

& F11903435) 

OPINION

THE COURT* 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don D. 

Penner, Judge. 

 Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

-ooOoo- 

 * Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J. 
2. 

INTRODUCTION

 Appellant/defendant Robert Lee Lockhart pleaded no contest in two separate cases 

to second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and carrying a concealed weapon (§ 12025, 

subd. (b)(6), and admitted an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1). He was sentenced to the 

stipulated term of four years eight months. 

On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with 

citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the 

record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We will affirm. 

FACTS2

Case No. F11903435

 On the afternoon of April 15, 2011, Edgar Flores went to Westside Market on 

South Elm in Fresno County to cash a check for approximately $1140. As the clerk 

counted the cash for Flores, two men entered the market. One man walked by the counter 

and saw the cash, and the two men left the store. 

 Flores took his money and got into his car, which was parked in front of the 

market. As he sat in his vehicle, three men attacked and assaulted him. They beat him, 

pulled at his clothing, put their hands in his pockets, and demanded that he give the 

money to them. During the beating, Flores dropped the cash, and one of the assailants 

picked up the money. Another assailant checked Flores’s pockets again and took his cell 

phone. The three men ran away. 

 During the investigation, the officers found defendant’s fingerprints on Flores’s 

car door. The officers showed photographic lineups, which included defendant’s picture, 

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

2 Given defendant’s no contest pleas, the following facts are from the preliminary 

hearing and probation report. 
3. 

to Flores and two store clerks. Flores and the clerks identified defendant as one of the 

three men who assaulted Flores and ran away with his money. Defendant was also 

observed on the store’s surveillance videotape. Flores identified defendant at the 

preliminary hearing. 

On June 1, 2011, defendant was arrested for this offense. 

 On August 23, 2011, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno 

County charging defendant with the second degree robbery of Flores. 

Case No. F11906070

 On September 20, 2011, officers with the Violent Crimes Impact Team were 

patrolling an area known for narcotic sales, robberies, and thefts. They observed 

defendant and several other men loitering at a bus stop. As the officers drove past the bus 

stop, defendant walked away, reached into his waistband, and threw a black handgun 

over a fence. The officers detained defendant, and then checked the other side of the 

fence. They found a .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun on the ground. It was loaded 

with one live round in the chamber and five live rounds in the magazine. Defendant was 

not the registered owner of the handgun. Defendant was on bail in the robbery case. 

 On October 20, 2011, a complaint was filed which charged defendant with count I, 

carrying a concealed weapon (§ 12025, subd. (b)(6)), and count II, carrying a loaded 

firearm registered to another individual (§ 12031, subd. (a)(2)(F)), with an on-bail 

enhancement (§ 12022.1). 

Plea and sentencing proceedings

 On March 22, 2012, the court heard and denied defendant’s motion for 

appointment of a new attorney, pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 

 On April 13, 2012, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery in case 

No. F11903435. He also pleaded no contest to carrying a concealed weapon and 

admitted the on-bail enhancement in case No. F11906070, for a stipulated term of four 
4. 

years eight months in both cases. The court dismissed the remaining charges, along with 

the allegations in an unrelated case (No. F12901347). 

 On June 1, 2012, the court sentenced defendant to the lower term of two years for 

second degree robbery, plus eight months (one-third the midterm) for carrying a 

concealed weapon, and two years for the on-bail enhancement, for an aggregate term of 

four years eight months. Defendant was awarded 123 days of presentence credit. As to 

each case, the court imposed a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a suspended 

$240 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45); a $40 court security fee; and a $30 criminal 

conviction assessment. The court reserved jurisdiction as to victim restitution. 

 On June 22, 2012, defendant filed timely notices of appeal in both cases. 

DISCUSSION

 As noted above, defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief with this 

court. The brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating defendant 

was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on September 25, 2012, 

we invited defendant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. 

 Defendant has failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause and therefore cannot 

challenge the underlying validity of his pleas. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 

77-79.) 

 After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable 

factual or legal issues exist. 

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is affirmed.