P. v. Cruz

Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Cruz CA3

Received for posting 5/3/06

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

Defendant Isaac Joseph Cruz pleaded guilty to passing a forged check (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d); further statutory references are to the Penal Code) and admitted a 1985 robbery strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, two strike allegations and four prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for six years, awarded 72 days of custody credit and 36 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).

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 , Acting P.J.

We concur:

ROBIE , J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Apartment Manager Lawyers.