legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Penman

P. v. Penman
05:16:2006

P. v. Penman



Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Penman CA3


Received for posting 5/3/06






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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




(Plumas)


----








THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


JESSE JAMES PENMAN,


Defendant and Appellant.



C050686


(Super.Ct.No. 0531976)





Defendant Jesse James Penman pled guilty to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) with the agreement that a grand theft charge would be dismissed and he would receive no state prison at the outset. Thereafter, the trial court informed defendant that it did not intend to honor the plea agreement and intended to impose a state prison term of two years. Accordingly, the trial court gave defendant the opportunity to either withdraw or reaffirm his plea. Having been so advised, defendant reaffirmed his plea.


The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in state prison and awarded defendant 20 days of custody credit. Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)


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.


MORRISON , Acting P.J.


We concur:


ROBIE , J.


BUTZ , J.


Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.


Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Lawyers.





Description A decision regarding a plea agreement as to charge of receiving stolen property with the agreement that a dismissal of grand theft charge would follow.
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