P. v. Pendleton
Filed 4/24/06 P. v. Pendleton CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.D. PENDLETON, Defendant and Appellant. | B185733 (Super. Ct. No. TA077782) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner, Richard L. Fitzer, and California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
R.D. Pendleton appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by a plea of no contest, for sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section 1132, subdivision (a). Appellant also admitted he had suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (a) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). The court suspended sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for three years, and ordered him to complete a six-month out-patient treatment program.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that they had been unable to find any arguable issues. On December 22, 2005, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's appellate attorney has fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Attorneys.
