Filed 1/14/20 P. v. Ramirez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

D076230

(Super. Ct. No. SCD281241)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Carlos Ramirez of one count of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664 and 211). The court granted probation subject to various terms and conditions. The court imposed various fines, fees and assessments, but stayed them, finding Ramirez lacked the ability to pay them.

Ramirez filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Ramirez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The crime in this case took place on a bus. The 15-year-old victim was riding on the same bus as Ramirez Shortly after Ramirez got on the bus he approached the victim. Ramirez demanded the victim give him the victim’s shoes and sweater. When the victim declined to give up his clothes, Ramirez asked if he wanted to get rowdy.

The bus driver heard the conversation and pulled the bus to a stop. The driver intervened, but Ramirez continued to demand the clothes from the victim. The driver arranged for a call for police assistance.

Ramirez was arrested and later questioned by police. Ramirez told police he lived on the streets, it was cold, and he wanted the sweater. He said he told the victim to give him the sweater or he would get “beat down.”

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has asked the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that she considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on possible lesser included offenses.

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ramirez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.