P. v. Guerrero

Filed 5/10/07 P. v. Guerrero CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Glade F. Roper, Judge.

Gordon F. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

In August 2005, appellant Gloria Guerrero, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422) and being under the influence of methamphetamine while personally possessing a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (e)). In October 2005, the court placed appellant on three years probation with various terms and conditions, including that she serve 365 days in county jail with one day credit for time served. In March 2006, appellant admitted she committed a violation of probation, and the court reinstated appellant on probation. In April 2006, appellant moved to withdraw her plea, and the court denied the motion. The instant appeal followed.

Appellant did not request, and the trial court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5).

The report of the probation officer and records of the City of Lindsay Police Department indicate the following. Erminia Rangel told police on July 22, 2005, that appellant had come to her house on several occasions looking for Rangels son. On the first of these occasions, appellant arrived at Rangels home that day at approximately 4:00 a.m.; claimed that Rangels son had stolen some items from her; forced her way into Rangles house; and removed several articles of clothing belonging to Rangles son. A few hours later appellant returned; took a handgun from her purse; pointed it at the ground and told Rangel that if she (Rangel) did not make Rangles son come home soon, she (appellant) would shoot Rangel. Police took appellant into custody later that night when appellant again appeared at Rangels house. At that time, appellant appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant.

Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.

^*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.