P. v. Medina

Filed 7/26/07 P. v. Medina CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jack P. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed.

Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

In a felony complaint, the People charged defendant Mario Miramontes Medina with kidnapping for child molesting (Pen. Code,  207, subd. (b); count 1) and committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (id.,  288, subd. (a); count 2). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 2, and the trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years in state prison and dismissed count 1.

Four months after being sentenced, defendant filed an ex parte request, inviting the court to recall his sentence and commitment and to resentence him as if he previously had not been sentenced, provided that his new sentence was not greater than his original sentence of three years. Alternatively, defendant invited the court to request the Department of Corrections to prepare a diagnostic study recommending the recall of his three-year sentence. The basis for his ex parte request was his poor health and his familys desire for him to be at home where his emotional and financial support was needed.

The trial court denied defendants ex parte request on the ground that his sentence was based on a plea agreement between the defendant and the People and ordered that defendant remain remanded in state prison. Defendant appeals from the post-judgment order denying his ex parte request.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

On June 5, 2007, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions or arguments that he wanted us to consider. To date, we have received no response from defendant. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

JACKSON, J.*

We concur:

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

VOGEL, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.