People v. Moore CA2/4

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 14, 2023
• Docket: B317387
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Moore CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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