P. v. Kerley
Filed 3/10/06 P. v. Kerley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. KHRISTY KERLEY, Defendant and Appellant. | E038470 (Super.Ct.Nos. SWF006199 & SWF009054) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael S. Hider, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Cynthia M. Sorman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On May 11, 2005, the defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to violations of Penal Code sections 664/211 (count 3, attempted robbery); Penal Code section 368, subdivision (b)(1) (count 4, cruelty to a dependent adult), and Penal Code section 459 (count 6, second degree burglary). The defendant also admitted the special allegations charged pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a) and 667, subdivisions (c) through (e), as charged in the amended information filed by the District Attorney of Riverside County.
Thereafter, and in accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant was sentenced to state prison for 11 years 8 months less custody credits, and the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1385.)
Defendant appealed and 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, and she has done so. Defendant has filed a three-page supplemental letter brief which was read and considered.
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
/s/ McKINSTER
J.
/s/ KING
J.
Publication courtesy of Poway restraining order attorney (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Poway Lawyers Directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
