Filed 12/7/05 P. v. Maclean CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRENNAN MACLEAN, Defendant and Appellant. | D046755 (Super. Ct. No. SCD189934) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gale E. Kaneshiro, Judge. Affirmed.
Brennan Maclean entered guilty pleas to four counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460),[1] two counts of first degree robbery (§§ 211/212.5), and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). He admitted personally using a deadly weapon during one of the robberies and one of the burglaries (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced Maclean to prison for the four-year middle term on one residential burglary conviction, and imposed concurrent terms on the robbery convictions, one burglary conviction, and the possession of a controlled substance conviction. It stayed sentence on two burglary convictions (§ 654) and struck the weapon enhancements. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Maclean's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court promised to place Maclean on probation; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Maclean to prison for four years rather than placing him on probation.[2]
We granted Maclean permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Maclean on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.
Cardiff by the Sea Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Because Maclean entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
