P. v. Draper
Filed 10/17/06 P. v. Draper CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN CLINT DRAPER, Defendant and Appellant. | B191133 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA006515) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James Pierce, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
John Clint Draper appeals from an order made after judgment denying a motion to modify his sentence. He previously had been convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)).
On January 18, 2006, he filed in the superior court a motion for modification of sentence imposed on October 16, 1991, claiming the trial court’s order imposing the restitution fine of $5,000 had to be stricken. The trial court’s order denying the motion is the subject of this appeal.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On August 28, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
On September 18, 2006, he filed a motion to dismiss counsel of record, which was denied on September 27, 2006.
On September 18, 2006, appellant also filed a brief claiming in relevant part there was insufficient evidence of his ability to pay the restitution fine and for that reason, the fine had to be stricken.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. The record supports the implied finding of appellant’s ability to pay the restitution fine. (See Pen. Code, § 2085.5; People v. Gentry (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1376-1377.) Appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
