Filed 9/29/17 P. v. Barriga CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LUIS MIGUEL BARRIGA,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. MCR048047A)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Luis Miguel Barriga asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On January 11, 2014, defendant possessed a firearm while prohibited from doing so.[1]
On January 24, 2014, defendant pled guilty to possessing a firearm within 10 years of being convicted for violating Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e)(1)
(Pen. Code, § 29805; count 1). Defendant was released on his own recognizance.
On May 18, 2016, at the sentencing hearing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea, claiming he was justified in possessing the firearm because he had been the victim of a violent crime. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant then raised a Marsden[2] motion for substitute appointed counsel, which the trial court denied. Defendant requested a continuance to hire new counsel. The prosecutor objected, arguing defendant’s sentencing had already been delayed by two and one-half years. The court denied defendant’s request. The court granted defendant five years’ probation without any additional jail time, and imposed various fines and fees.
Having reviewed the entire record, we find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
