P. v. Gamera
Filed 7/24/07 P. v. Gamera CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL GAMERA, Defendant and Appellant. | B196427 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA071371) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jesse I. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
Defendant and appellant Raul Anthony Gamera pled no contest to possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted suffering a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to an agreed upon disposition, defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison, comprised of the midterm of two years on the heroin charge, which was doubled as a result of the prior strike conviction.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal indicating his appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after trial. Defendant specified that he was not given any paperwork Police Report and that all [he knew was he] got 4 years with 80% and he was threatened with more time if [he] didnt take the deal.
This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On May 7, 2007, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues but requesting an independent review of the record by this court. Defendant was notified by letter dated May 17, 2007, of his right to file a supplemental brief raising issues for our consideration.
No brief has been filed by defendant. We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues arising from the sentence or matters occurring after trial. The judgment is affirmed.
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
