Filed 1/25/21 P. v. Murphy CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B304212 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA099808) v. MARTELL LATROY MURPHY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lauren Weis Birnstein, Judge. Affirmed.

Glenn L. Savard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________ Defendant Martell Latroy Murphy appeals from the judgment of conviction. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND By information filed June 26, 2019, the People charged defendant with two counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code,1 § 211.) The People alleged that with respect to each robbery, defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The People alleged that both robberies were serious felonies. The People alleged defendant suffered two serious and/or violent offenses within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subd. (d) & 1170.12, subd. (b)).

The People alleged two prior serious or violent felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1).2 The People also

alleged three prior felonies for which defendant did not remain free from prison custody for a five year period (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).3 Prior to trial, the trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss one count of robbery in furtherance of justice.

Jurors found defendant guilty of one count of second degree robbery and further found that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b).

Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the priors.

The court concluded that defendant suffered two prior serious and/or violent felonies and that the offenses also fell within the ambit of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court concluded that the People did not prove that defendant suffered a prior offense for which he did not remain free from prison custody for five

prior serious felony convictions.” (People v. Taylor (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1102, 1113.)

years (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).4 The trial court exercised its discretion to strike both section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements. The trial court granted defendant’s oral Romero5 motion and sentenced defendant as a second-strike offender rather than a third-strike offender.

The court ordered defendant to serve a 20-year determinate prison term, consisting of a five-year robbery sentence doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law and a 10-year enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to the high term for robbery because he was unsuccessful on parole. The court ordered defendant pay $8,494.10 in restitution to the victim. Defendant timely appealed from the judgment of conviction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 10, 2018, defendant and his confederate entered Baby Doll Luxury Hair, a store that sold hair extensions.

Defendant was holding a gun. Both defendant and his confederate ordered the store clerk to open the cash register.

Defendant took cash from the cash register. Defendant’s confederate took merchandise from the store. The store clerk identified defendant at trial as the person holding the gun. She

4Although appellate counsel states the trial court found true that defendant “suffered a prior prison term,” the record indicates that the court found the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements not true. The abstract of judgment confirms that the trial court did not add a one-year enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

heard defendant tell a handyman “something like, ‘Don’t be a hero.’ . . . ” The store clerk also identified defendant in a six pack photographic lineup prior to trial.

Detective Shaun Kemp received an anonymous tip identifying defendant as one of the robbery perpetrators. Kemp subpoenaed records from an Instagram account that he believed belonged to defendant. Messages in the account referred to defendant’s name, and the account included pictures of defendant. One message on the Instagram account read “I got hair. . . . But keep it on the low.” That message was posted the day after the robbery at Baby Doll Luxury Hair. A few days later, another message on the Instagram account read “I got some hair.” The same Instagram account had an advertisement for hair extensions using the unique description that the owner of Baby Doll Luxury Hair used.

DISCUSSION Defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 identifying no issue. This court advised defendant of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

He filed none.

We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issue.

Appointed counsel has fully complied with counsel’s responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

FEDERMAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.