P. v. Lofton
Filed 3/16/06 P. v. Lofton CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEROME RANDY LOFTON, Defendant and Appellant. | B186646 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA266163) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Fredrick Wapner, Judge. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard L. Fitzer, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________
On June 30, 2004, Jerome Lofton entered a plea of guilty to possessing cocaine earlier that month and was placed on probation in accordance with the provisions of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Pen. Code, § 1210 et seq.). In December 2004, defendant admitted violating probation but his probation was reinstated. In September 2005, defendant was found in violation of probation at a contested hearing based on evidence that he threw urine at a jail employee. Defendant was sentenced to a middle term of two years in state prison. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) On January 3, 2006, we sent notice to defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. To date, no response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, J.
We concur:
SPENCER, P. J.
VOGEL, J.
Publication courtesy of Santee minimum wages lawyer( http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/ )and Santee lawyers directory( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/)