P. v. McGuire
Filed 10/19/07 P. v. McGuire 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SHANNON McGUIRE, Defendant and Appellant. | E042590 (Super.Ct.No. FMB008648) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. William Jefferson Powell, IV, Judge. Affirmed.
Gregory Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On January 17, 2007, pursuant to Penal Code section 859a,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to count one ( 459, second degree burglary) and admitted the special allegations as charged pursuant to 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12, subdivision (a)-(d) in the amended complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
Thereafter, and in accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for four years less custody credits and counts 2 and 3 and the special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney and in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385.
Statement of facts
At the time of the entry of the plea by defendant, counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for both the plea and admission as set forth in the police report. The underlying facts are taken from the police report filed by the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department in case No. 230603572 filed by Deputy Kaukani: On December 14, 2006, the officer was dispatched to the victims residence in response to a report of a burglary. The victim stated that clothing and numerous items of property had been taken including a 26-inch Mintek flat panel television. Defendant was arrested shortly thereafter and at that time defendant was in possession of the victims television as well as two prescription pill bottles with the victims name on the bottles.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel 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, which he has not done.
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
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
