P. v. Arbuckle
Filed 8/2/06 P. v. Arbuckle CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DESMOND ARBUCKLE, Defendant and Appellant. | D047396 (Super. Ct. No. SCN192212) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
Desmond Arbuckle entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).[1] He admitted a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668), and serving two prior prison terms (§§ 667.5 subd. (b), 668). The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated term of nine years four months: double the three-year upper term for possessing a controlled substance with a prior strike, and a consecutive one year four months for burglary with a prior strike (double one-third the middle term), enhanced by two 1-year terms for the prior prison terms.[2] The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court abused is discretion in denying probation. We granted Arbuckle permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Arbuckle on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Because Arbuckle entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
