P. v. Dickens
Filed 10/6/06 P. v. Dickens CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSCOE DICKENS, Defendant and Appellant. | E040313 (Super.Ct.No. RIF107814) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)), during which he discharged a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)) and two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), during both of which he discharged a firearm and during one of which he inflicted serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a).) The trial court granted his motion for a new trial as to the attempted murder and the People appealed. In People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, we upheld the trial court’s granting of a new trial. Back in the trial court, in exchange for the People dismissing the attempted murder count and its attendant firearm allegation, defendant agreed to a 14 year, four month prison sentence on the remaining convictions and true findings and to waive his right to appeal. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause on the basis that he had been “sentence[d] for the same offense three different times.”
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.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
McKINSTER
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
