P. v. Casas

Filed 4/3/06 P. v. Casas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.

Dominic Casas entered negotiated guilty pleas to assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c),)^[1] two counts of taking or unlawfully driving a stolen vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and two counts of hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)). He admitted a prior conviction of taking or driving a stolen vehicle (§ 666.5, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to prison for the four-year middle term for assault with a deadly weapon on an officer and imposed concurrent terms on the remaining convictions. The record does not include 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 possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Casas's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the prison term as opposed to placing Casas on probation.

We granted Casas permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. In his request for a certificate of probable cause Casas contended the trial court erred in denying his request to continue sentencing until disposition of an unrelated murder charge. He claimed denial of a continuance prevented counsel from investigating circumstances underlying taking of the guilty plea and thwarted efforts to inquire whether the district attorney properly filed charges. A review of the entire record, including the sealed transcript of March 7, 2005, 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 Casas on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

IRION, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.