P. v. De La Cruz

Filed 4/4/06 P. v. De La Cruz CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Lisa Lench, Judge. Affirmed.

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Artemeo de la Cruz appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of two counts of first degree burglary, one count of grand theft and one count of petty theft, a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 487, subd. (a), 484, subd. (a).) The jury found de la Cruz had two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court struck one of the convictions alleged within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and sentenced de la Cruz to a second strike term of 24 years and 8 months in state prison. The trial court also imposed a consecutive term in case No. KA064878, in which de la Cruz previously had been sentenced to the middle term of two years, doubled. The trial court recomputed that sentence as a consecutive term of one-third the middle term, doubled, or one year and four months. The total of these two terms is 26 years in state prison.

We appointed counsel to represent de la Cruz on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised and which requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

This court previously granted de la Cruz numerous extensions of time within which to file a supplemental opening brief, the last of which expired on February 10, 2006. To date, he has not filed a supplemental opening brief.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied de la Cruz's counsel has complied fully with counsel's responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284 [145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J. KITCHING, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Attorneys.