Filed 12/23/19 P. v. Bob 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

LEON BOB,

Defendant and Appellant.

B295395

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA110023)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel J. Lowenthal, Judge. Affirmed.

David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In August 2018, defendant and appellant Leon Bob (defendant) was charged with two offenses committed on the same day: bringing contraband into the Long Beach City Jail (Pen. Code, § 4573(a), a felony) and giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 128.9(a), a misdemeanor). Pursuant to a plea deal with the prosecution, defendant pled guilty to both charges in exchange for a sentence of 30 months in county jail—two years on the felony contraband count and six months on the misdemeanor false information count, with the terms to run consecutively. That is the sentence the trial court imposed.

After sentencing, defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to stay execution of fines, fees, and assessments imposed as part of the trial court’s sentence, arguing he had no ability to pay them. The trial court granted the motion, ordering a $300 restitution fine stayed and waiving court operations and criminal conviction assessments.

Defendant noticed an appeal from the judgment and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On September 10, 2019, this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.

We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.