P. v. Mings
Filed 10/3/06 P. v. Mings CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Glenn)
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL EDMUND MINGS, Defendant and Appellant. | C052235
(Super. Ct. No. 05SCR02701)
|
Defendant Michael Edmund Mings entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of a deadly weapon, to wit, a billy club (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts as well as certain other misdemeanor cases (case Nos. 05SCR02562, 05SCR02563, 05SCR02683) and the prosecutor’s recommendation of probation with no state prison at the outset which did not bind the court.
The prosecutor submitted on the probation officer’s recommendation of probation. The court denied probation citing defendant’s criminal record and sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of two years for the possession offense and a concurrent two-year term for the receiving offense. The court awarded 32 days of presentence custody credit, imposed a $400 restitution fine and a $400 parole revocation restitution fine, and reserved jurisdiction over the amount of victim restitution.
Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
RAYE , J.
HULL , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
