Court Opinion

ID: 9957205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 20:02:30.05177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:08.943741
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/3/24 P. v. Roulet CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B326080
                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 22CR04962)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Santa Barbara County)

 v.

 DALTON KENT ROULET,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Dalton Kent Roulet appeals after a jury convicted him of
second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and found true the
special allegations that (1) the crime involved great violence,
great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts
disclosing a high degree of cruelty or viciousness, or callousness,
and (2) the defendant carried out the crime of robbery in a
manner indicating planning, sophistication, or professionalism
(Cal Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1), (a)(8)).

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
      The trial court found true a prior strike allegation (§ 667,
subd. (e)(1)) and sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 11
years in state prison, consisting of the midterm of three years,
doubled due to the prior strike, plus five years for a prior serious
felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
      We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief
that raises no arguable issues. On February 2, 2024, we notified
appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The
30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any
contentions or issues for our consideration.
      In December 2021, appellant entered a liquor store in
Santa Maria, pointed a gun at the cashier, and told him to put
the money from the cash register in a bag. The cashier did as
instructed and appellant fled with approximately $500 to $600.
      At trial, the prosecution introduced video surveillance,
eyewitness testimony, and photographic evidence connecting
appellant to the robbery based on his distinctive clothing,
jewelry, and vehicle. The prosecution also obtained still
photographs from the Chumash Casino in Santa Ynez, which
included images of appellant’s vehicle in the parking garage and
appellant and his wife inside the casino after the robbery. Casino
machine records indicated appellant spent $601.
      We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities
and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436.)
                             Disposition
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                 2
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                 YEGAN, Acting P. J.
We concur:

             BALTODANO. J.

             CODY, J.

                             3
                    Patricia Kelly, Judge
           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
              ______________________________

      Sanger Law Firm and Sarah S. Sanger, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance for Respondent.