P.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Hicks on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 14, 2012, we advised Hicks he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received a handwritten supplemental brief in which Hicks appears to challenge (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding he suffered a prior strike conviction in 1980 for robbery (Case No. A021658) and (2) the trial court’s denial of his Romero motion. Although neither of Hicks’s claims presents an arguable issue, pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120-121, we will address his contentions.

3 1. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding Hicks suffered a conviction in 1980 for robbery

In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the reviewing court “must review the record ‘in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant…