P. v.
Filed 5/17/13 P. v. Moore CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GREGORY EUGENE MOORE,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062068
(Super. Ct.
No. SCD237133)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil
Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala
Harris, Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND
AND DISCUSSION
Gregory
Eugene Moore pleaded guilty to burglary
(Pen. Code,
title="">[1] § 459;
count 1) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 4.) In exchange, the People dismissed counts 2
and 3 for grand theft of personal
property (§ 487, subd. (a)), count 5 for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496,
subd. (d)), and count 6 for burglary (§ 459).
The People also declined to amend the complaint to allege a charge of
failure to appear. During plea bargain,
the court indicated a sentencing lid of four years eight months, but left open
the possibility of imposing a split sentence under section 1170, subdivision
(h). At sentencing, a different judge
declined to impose a split sentence, and instead sentenced Moore
to four years eight months in county jail, and ordered him to pay certain
fines. Moore
appeals. We affirm.
Appointed
counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but
asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to
possible but not arguable issues of whether:
(1) Moore's custody credits were correctly calculated under section
4019; (2) the consecutive terms for counts 1 and 4 violated section 654,
assuming the claim is cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable
cause; (3) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance; and (4) he was
properly ordered to pay restitution to the victim affected by an underlying
count although that count was dismissed.
We granted Moore
permission to file a brief on his own behalf.
He has not responded. Our review
of the entire record pursuant to People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders v. California,
possible issues referred to by appellate counsel and the circumstances
surrounding the court's taking of the plea, has disclosed no reasonably
on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
