Court Opinion

ID: 9387090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 18:02:14.780662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.309839
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Moore CA2/4
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                      B317387

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. BA495373)
           v.

 JAMELVIN MOORE,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.
     Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Respondent.
                      INTRODUCTION
      On November 30, 2021, appellant Jamelvin Moore was
convicted of trafficking a minor for a commercial sex act. He
was also found to have a prior conviction for violating Penal
Code section 236.1, subdivision (c)(1), and two prior strike
convictions for robbery. On January 5, 2022, the court
sentenced appellant to 25 years to life under California’s
Three Strikes law, plus an additional five years pursuant to
Penal Code section 236.4, subdivision (c), for his prior
human trafficking conviction. Appellant timely appealed.
      Appellant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief
under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no
arguable issues and requesting this court conduct an
independent review of the record. On November 7, 2022, we
notified appellant he had 30 days to submit in writing any
issues or contentions he wished us to consider. We received
no response.
      We have independently reviewed the record and
discern no arguable issue. By virtue of counsel’s compliance
with the Wende procedure and our review of the record,
appellant has received adequate and effective appellate
review of the judgment. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528
U.S. 259, 278-279.)

                              2
                      DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                       DAUM, J. *

We concur:

COLLINS, J.

CURREY, Acting P.J.

*     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to Article VI, section 6, of the California
Constitution.

                                 3