P. v. Chandra
Filed 4/23/07 P. v. Chandra CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PREM PRAKASH CHANDRA, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | F051394 (Super. Ct. No. 1210334) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ricardo Cordova, Judge.
Susan D. Shors, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On November 4, 1997, appellant, Prem Prakash Chandra, Jr., and another man entered the victims house in Modesto asking for a man who did not live there. While the second man ransacked the victims house, Chandra, who was armed with a handgun, took her to a second house on the property, where he raped her after making her orally copulate him. When the victims boyfriend arrived, the two men physically assaulted him before fleeing.
On July 14, 2006, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Chandra with rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)) and alleging he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
On July 18, 2006, the court issued an arrest warrant for Chandra.
On August 15, 2006, Chandra pled no contest to rape and admitted the prior conviction allegations. In exchange, he received a stipulated term of four years (one-third the middle term of six years, doubled to four years because of Chandras prior strike conviction), which was to be served consecutive to a prison term he was serving when he was arrested in this matter.
Chandras appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Chandra has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.
