legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Nelson

P. v. Nelson
10:03:2006

P. v. Nelson




Filed 8/31/06 P. v. Nelson CA6






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS



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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT










THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


ROBERT THOMAS NELSON,


Defendant and Appellant.



H029927


(Santa Clara County


Super.Ct.No. CC598415)



Defendant, Robert Thomas Nelson, was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance, cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). He was charged with two related misdemeanors, being under the influence of a controlled substance and possessing narcotic paraphernalia. The information further alleged that defendant had one prior strike pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (b) through (i) and 1170.12 and that he had served five prior prison terms pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He pleaded no contest to the charges and admitted every enhancement.


At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s Romero[1] motion was denied. Probation was denied and he was committed to the state prison for the lower term of 32 months. The trial court struck the punishment for the five prior prison term enhancements. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the misdemeanor charges. Various fines and fees were imposed.


Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.


Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his behalf but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there are no arguable issues on appeal.


The judgment is affirmed.



Duffy, J.


WE CONCUR:



Mihara, Acting, P.J.



McAdams, J.


Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.


Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.


[1] People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.





Description Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine base, being under the influence of a controlled substance and possessing narcotic paraphernalia. On appeal, Defendant was notified of his right to submit an argument. No argument was submitted. Judgment Affirmed
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale