Filed 5/4/23 P. v. Tucker CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K EISHA TUCKER,

Defendant and Appellant. B324375

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA458694)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado , Judge. Dismissed

.

Richard B. Lennon , under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________2 Keisha Tucker appeals from a judgment that sentences her

to 15 years to life in state prison following her plea of no contest

to second degree murder. Tucker’s appellate counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).

Tucker has filed a supplemental letter brief indicating she did not

wish to pursue her appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal as

abandoned.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2017, Tucker set several fire s at a transitional

living facility where 17

- year

- old Elijah Robinson and his older

brother, Marquise Larrimore, lived. Robinson died in the fire.

Tucker was charged by information with murder (count 1; Pen.

Code, 187, subd. (a)) and arson of an inhabited s tructure (count

2; § 451, subd. (b) )

. The criminal proceedings against Tucker were twice

suspended when a doubt was expressed concerning her

competency to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1368

. The proceedings were reinstated after Tucker was t reated and

the court found Tucker competent. Tucker ultimately ple a d ed no

contest to second degree murder. The trial court sentenced her to

15 years to life pursuant to the plea agreement reached by the

parties

. Counsel for Tucker timely filed a notice of appeal.

We appointed counsel to represent Tucker on appeal. Her

appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, in which no issues were

raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that he had

reviewed the record and sent Tucker a letter advising h er that

such a brief would be filed and she could file a supplemental

brief. On February 22, 2023, this court also sent defendant a

letter advising her that a Wende brief had been filed and that she3

had 30 days to submit a brief raising any issues she wanted this

court to consider.

On February 26, 2023, Tucker submitted the following

letter to the court: “Why am I broke? I did not appeal my case. I

just [want] my r estitution. If I’m say [ing] it right or spelling it

right. Pleas [e] let me know. I have all these paper from your

office. I [am] requesting help with the print .” Because Tucker

has indicated she does not want to pursue her appeal, we dismiss

the matte r as abandoned. ( See Cal. Rules of Court , rule 8.316(a)

[“An appellant may abandon the appeal at any time by filing an

abandonment of the appeal signed by the appellant or the

appellant's attorney of record. ”].)

Nonetheless, w e have examined the entire re cord and are

satisfied that Tucker’s attorney fully complied with his

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( Smith v.

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE C ONCUR :

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.