P. v. Podsiad
Filed 6/30/06 P. v. Podsiad 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. FRANK JAMES PODSIAD, Defendant and Appellant. | E039148 (Super.Ct.No. FSB050627) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John N. Martin, Judge. Affirmed.
Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant appeals from a final judgment following a guilty plea. Defendant, represented by counsel, entered not guilty pleas to the following charges alleged in a felony complaint filed June 22, 2005: second degree commercial burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459; grand theft person in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a); and receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). Defendant also denied the allegations that he had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On July 19, 2005, defendant withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered a guilty plea to the felony burglary charge; the remaining charges were dismissed. In agreement with a Vargas waiver[1] and under the terms of the plea bargain, upon his timely return to court on August 30, 2005, defendant received a state prison sentence of one year four months. The Penal Code section 667.5 enhancements were dismissed.
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.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Lawyers.
