P. v. Chiang
Filed 7/18/07 P. v. Chiang CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUSTIN R. CHIANG, Defendant and Appellant. | B194466 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA084746) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Xenophon F. Lang, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Marylou Hillberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Austin R. Chiang was charged by felony complaint with felony child abuse by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1), possession of a deadly weapon (expandable baton) (count 2), and misdemeanor battery by restraint (count 3) (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a), 12020, subd. (a)(1), 242). The complaint also alleged Chiang had suffered three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170, subds. (a)-(d).)
On June 27, 2006, Austin R. Chiang pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (amended count 4) (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted one prior felony strike conviction. In exchange, the People agreed the new offense would not be considered a felony strike offense and Chiang would receive a state prison term of four years, consisting of double the lower term of two years. On July 12, 2006, Chiang was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement to an aggregate state prison term of four years. He received presentence custody credit of 86 days (58 actual days and 28 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Chiang to pay a $20 security assessment, an $800 restitution fine, and $100 in victim restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f). A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed on the Peoples motion.
On August 10, 2006, Chiang filed an in propria persona notice of appeal, a request for certificate of probable cause and a request to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). His requests were denied and this appeal ensued. We appointed counsel to represent Chiang on appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On May 17, 2007, we advised Chiang he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Chiangs attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Chiang was properly advised of his trial rights, the nature of count 4 (assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury), the consequences of his plea, including his bargained-for sentence, and he was sentenced in accordance with that plea bargain.
The order denying Chiangs request to recall his four-year sentence is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
JOHNSON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
