P. v. Burton
Filed 10/5/06 P. v. Burton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. JAMES EDWARD BURTON, Defendant and Appellant. | B190890 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA073099) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jack P. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed.
Catherine White, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, James Edward Burton, appeals from a judgment after he pled nolo contendere to second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 459), admitted that he had previously served a prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and waived all presentence custody credits. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for one year, four months for the burglary plus one year for the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. Defendant was ordered to pay a $20 court security fund fine, a $10 crime prevention fund fine, a restitution fine of $200, and a parole revocation restitution fine of $200, which was stayed unless parole is revoked. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1), 1202.45, 1202.5; 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant was also ordered to provide a deoxyribonucleic acid sample. (§ 296.) Defendant appealed his conviction based on sentencing error.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, defense counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, defense counsel requested we independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On August 11, 2006, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. No response has been received. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no argument exists favorable to him. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J.
MOSK, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
