legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Lopez

P. v. Lopez
08:30:2006

P. v. Lopez




Filed 8/28/06 P. v. Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.


MARIO LOPEZ,


Defendant and Appellant.



E039344


(Super.Ct.No. RIF 124974)


OPINION



APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kenneth Fernandez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art VI, § 21.) Affirmed.


Jamie L. Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Defendant was originally charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, and with one count of receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496[1]. It was also alleged that defendant had suffered five prison priors. In a negotiated disposition, defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance and admitted a prison prior pursuant to section 667.5, subd. (b). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant has appealed, and upon his 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 to undertake a review of the entire record.


We have invited defendant to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done.


We have now completed our independent review of the record. We find no arguable issues.


The judgment is affirmed.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.



HOLLENHORST


J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ


P.J.


MCKINSTER


J.


Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.


Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.


[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.





Description A criminal law decision regarding possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350 and with one count of receiving stolen property.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale