P. v. Nava
Filed 4/3/07 P. v. Nava 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JAVIER RAMOS NAVA, Defendant and Appellant. | E040294 (Super.Ct.No. RIF119010) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Don Inskeep, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 1, 2004, in felony case No. RIF119010 filed by the District Attorney of Riverside County, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Health & Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a)[1]and admitted the special allegation filed pursuant to that count ( 11370.2, subd. (c).). In accordance with the plea bargain defendant was placed on Proposition 36 probation and the remaining count and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney and in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
Thereafter, on March 20, 2006, defendant, again represented by counsel, was found to be in violation of his grant of probation. Defendant was then committed to state prison for two years less custody credits and his grant of probation was ordered permanently revoked and terminated.
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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.
RICHLI
J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code, unless otherwise indicated.
