P. v. Brown
Filed 12/10/07 P. v. Brown CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOUGLAS DENSAL BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B199687 (Super. Ct. No. 1212983) (Santa Barbara County) |
Douglas Densal Brown appeals from the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460)[1] and one count of resisting an officer ( 69). The trial court sentenced him to two concurrent middle terms of two years for the substantive offenses enhanced by two years for the prior prison terms. The court gave appellant 408 days of presentence credits and imposed restitution fines and drug program and laboratory fees.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant was charged with burglary ( 459, 460), robbery ( 211) and resisting an officer ( 69). In addition, three prior felonies were alleged as prior prison term enhancements. ( 667.5, subd. (b).)
At arraignment, appellant initially sought to represent himself, but he then withdrew that request.
Subsequently, appellant waived his trial rights and pled guilty to the burglary and resisting counts and admitted two prior prison term allegations. As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed that there would be a four-year "lid" on appellant's sentence.
At sentencing, appellant requested that he be placed on probation. He explained that all three crimes stemmed from an incident at a Rite-Aid, where a petty theft turned into a charged robbery. He told the court that he had been depressed over the way his life had turned out and that he felt in jeopardy because he had previously witnessed a murder. He explained that he had ingested PCP on the day in question, but he had committed no new felonies in the previous 10 years although he had abused illegal substances since then.
The court, however, denied appellant's request to be placed on probation citing his history and the gravity of the offense. It sentenced appellant to two concurrent middle terms of two years for the substantive offense, enhanced by two years for the prison terms. Against this sentence, the court gave appellant 408 days of presentence credits. It also imposed restitution fines and drug program and laboratory fees.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On September 14, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Appellant has not filed a brief or any other response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Frank J. Ochoa, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
