P. v. Coleman
Filed 5/8/07 P. v. Coleman CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KISHA COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | E041096 (Super.Ct.No. FSB50701) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael M. Dest, Judge. Affirmed.
Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
statement of the case
On May 11, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code[1]section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of section 245, subdivision (a) (count two) and admitted the special allegation filed pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (a), as charged in the amended complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for 7 years less custody credits and the remaining count and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the People and in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385.
statement of facts
Appellant used a knife and personally caused great bodily injury during an assault.[2]
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
KING
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.
[2] Defendants plea was entered prior to the preliminary hearing, and because no probation report was prepared, this statement of the facts is taken from the description of facts mentioned during the plea proceedings.
