P. v. Colins
Filed 4/25/07 P. v. Colins CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC JAMES COLLINS, Defendant and Appellant. | C053336 Sup. Ct. No. 06F3109 |
About 11:00 p.m. on April 24, 2006, defendant Eric James Collins told a Circle K store clerk that he would return to commit a robbery. The clerk knew defendant. They had the same parole officer. About 1:00 a.m. on April 25, 2006, defendant returned, stated he had a gun and demanded the money from the register. The clerk gave defendant $218.18. The stores surveillance camera recorded the robbery on videotape.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and admitted a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations (five other prior prison term allegations) and a stipulated four-year prison sentence, that is, the midterm of three years for the offense plus one year for the prison prior. The court sentenced defendant accordingly, imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole revocation restitution fine, a $20 court security fee, a $31.50 property theft fine plus assessments, and awarded 49 actual days and 7 conduct days for a total of 56 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5) was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
DAVIS , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
