P. v. Langford
Filed 6/11/07 P. v. Langford CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GILBERT WESLEY LANGFORD, Defendant and Appellant. | E041998 (Super.Ct.No. INF055703) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas N. Douglass, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 15, 2006, defendant and appellant Gilbert Wesley Langford (defendant) was charged with two counts of first degree robbery within an inhabited dwelling house (Pen. Code, 211 & 212.5), and one count of evading police (Veh. Code, 2800.2). The People also alleged that defendant had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On September 27, 2006, defendant pled guilty to the two robbery counts and admitted three of the prior prison terms. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years on one of the robbery counts, with a concurrent term of six years on the other robbery count. The court also sentenced defendant to three one-year enhancements for the prior prison terms, for a total sentence of nine years in prison.
The factual basis for defendants guilty plea was that he took some property from somebody that didnt belong to [him] by means of force or fear. The information indicates that the victim of the residential robbery was Beatrice Langford, a person who was 65 years of age or older.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from prison. The trial court granted defendants request for a certificate of probable cause.
Upon defendants request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
