P. v. Olin
Filed 3/30/06 P. v. Olin CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WALTER LOUIS OLIN, Defendant and Appellant. | E037590 (Super.Ct.No. RIF114719) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Ronald L. Taylor and Russell F. Schooling,[1] Judges. Affirmed.
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Walter Louis Olin was charged by information on April 5, 2004, with a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359, felony possession of marijuana for sale. Defendant, represented by counsel,[2] elected to have a jury trial. Following the jury trial, defendant was convicted of the charged offense.
Defendant received a state prison sentence consisting of the low term of one year four months. Pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45, the court imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation fine. A $20 security fee pursuant to Penal Code Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) was also imposed. Presentence custody credits of four days were awarded.
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 done and which we have reviewed.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P.J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Retired judge of the Municipal Court for the Southeast Judicial District of Los Angeles, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the California Constitution.
[2] During the pendency of this case, defendant made both a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and a Faretta motion (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U. S. 806). These were denied. By the time of trial, defendant, who remained out of custody on bail, had retained private counsel who represented him at trial and at the sentencing.
