P. v. Haney
Filed 10/29/07 P. v. Haney CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MALCOLM LIKOLO HANEY, SR., Defendant and Appellant. | A117094 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC61894) |
Appellant Malcolm Likolo Haney, Sr. entered a plea of no contest to a violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (receiving stolen property) and admitted a prior strike allegation. He was sentenced to the low term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months under Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.[1]
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. His no contest plea and admission of the strike prior were validly entered. There was a factual basis for the plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants Romero motion[2]because of appellants numerous felony convictions, parole violations, and failure to take advantage of drug treatment programs previously offered. There was no sentencing error.
Judgment affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1]Appellant was informed of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and has not filed one.
