P. v. Bejaran
Filed 4/5/06 P. v. Bejaran CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GILBERT JESSE BEJARAN, Defendant and Appellant.
|
F048800
(Super. Ct. No. 1094969)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Donald E. Shaver, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On July 19, 2005, appellant, Gilbert Jesse Bejaran, pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377). Bejaran also admitted a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Bejaran to prison for the mitigated term of 16 months which it doubled to 32 months pursuant to the three strikes law. The trial court dismissed prior prison term enhancement allegations, ordered Bejaran to pay a restitution fine and awarded applicable custody credits.
Bejaran's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Bejaran was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on November 4, 2005, we invited Bejaran to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Attorneys.
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Gomes, J.
