Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Polloreno CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
MARTY LYN POLLORENO,
Defendant and Appellant. B242579
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA095652)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________ ___________2 Marty Lyn Polloreno was char ged in an information w ith the attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder of Ruben Pacheco (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, count 1) 1 and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 24 5, subd. (a)(1), count 2). As to the attempted murder count it was specially alleged Polloreno ha d personally used a deadly weapon to commit the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(2)). As to both counts th e information specially alleged Polloreno had personally inflicted great bod ily injury on Pacheco in committing the offenses (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Represented by retained counsel, Polloreno pleaded not guilty to the charges and deni ed the special allegations. According to the ev idence at trial, Polloreno confronted Pacheco outside
Pacheco’s home and stabbed him. Pacheco required surgery fo r injuries to his abdomen and chest. The jury convi cted Polloreno as charged and found true the special allegations. The trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel of record and appointed the alte rnate public defender to re present Polloreno on his motion
for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. At the sentencing hearing the
court heard and denied Polloreno’s motion fo r a new trial and a request to stay his sentence for attempted murder. The court sent enced Polloreno to an indeterminate term of life in prison with the possibility of paro le for attempted murder, plus determinate terms of one year for the weapon-use enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), 2 and three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court stayed imposition of sentence for assault with a deadly weapon pursuant to section 654. The court ordered Polloreno to pay a $40 co urt security fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, a $240 restitution fine and $4,934.08 in victim restitution. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Polloreno

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Without objection, the trial court ame nded the weapon-use enhancement on its own motion to read section 12022, subdiv ision (b)(1), rather than section 12022, subdivision (b)(2), noting th at subdivision (b)(2) only applie s to the offense of carjacking.3 was awarded a total of 322 days of presen tence credit (280 actual days and 42 days conduct credit). We appointed counsel to represent Pollo reno on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an openin g brief in which no issues we re raised. On January 14,
2013 we advised Polloreno he had 30 days in which to pers onally submit any contentions
or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the record and are satisfied Polloreno’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of couns el and no arguable issue exists. ( Smith v.
Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [1 20 S.Ct. 746, 14 5 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J

We concur:

WOODS, J.

ZELON, J.