Court Opinion

ID: 9382868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 21:02:31.270799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.204614
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/23 P. v. Grantham CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B320128

     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. SA105795)
                   v.

TONY SCOTT GRANTHAM,

     Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Kathryn A. Solorzano, Judge. Affirmed.

     Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                        **********
        In March 2022, defendant and appellant Tony Scott
Grantham pled no contest to one count of first degree burglary
(Pen. Code, § 459), one misdemeanor count of receiving stolen
property not exceeding $950 in value (§ 496, subd. (a)) and one
misdemeanor count of possession of personal identification
information with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)).
Defendant also admitted someone was present in the residence
during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).
Defendant waived his rights. Counsel joined in the waivers and
stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court found
defendant’s waivers to be knowingly and voluntarily made,
accepted defendant’s plea and found him guilty of all three
counts.
       The court struck defendant’s strikes based on their age and
because defendant did not physically confront the homeowner or
engage in violence. In accordance with the plea agreement, the
court imposed the high term of six years on count 1 and imposed
concurrent one-year sentences on each of counts 2 and 3. The
court awarded defendant 99 days of presentence custody credits
(86 actual and 13 conduct). The court imposed a $300 restitution
fine, and imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine on
count 1. The court imposed court operations and criminal
convictions assessments on each count in accordance with Penal
Code section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373.
       In a subsequent hearing, the court granted defendant’s
request for a return of his wallet and its contents taken by law
enforcement at the time of his arrest.
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal and request for a
certificate of probable cause which was denied. Defendant then

                                2
filed a notice of appeal challenging only the sentence imposed or
postplea matters.
       We appointed appellate counsel to represent defendant.
Defendant’s appointed counsel, Rachel Lederman, filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in
which no issues were raised. The Wende brief included a
declaration from Ms. Lederman in which she explains that she
forwarded the brief and the record to defendant, advised him of
his right to file a supplemental brief and his right to discharge
her as his attorney. Ms. Lederman also stated her availability to
brief, upon request, any issues we may have following our
independent review of the case. Ms. Lederman also filed a
motion to augment in this court to ensure that a copy of the
probation report was made a part of the record. We granted the
motion to augment.
       Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
       We have examined the entire record of proceedings
submitted to this court and are satisfied that appointed counsel
fully complied with her responsibilities. We find no arguable
appellate issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                                    GRIMES, J.
     WE CONCUR:

                       STRATTON, P. J.           VIRAMONTES, J.

                                3