P. v. Prudholme
Filed 6/9/06 P. v. Prudholme 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. RICKY PRUDHOLME, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | E039240 (Super.Ct.No. FBA008757) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John B. Gibson, Judge. Affirmed.
Dacia A. Burz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 7, 2005, the district attorney filed an information charging defendant with four felonies.
On September 13, 2005, defendant entered a plea to count 1, felon in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) Pursuant to a plea bargain,[1] the other three felonies were dismissed. The plea bargain called for a sentence of three years, a waiver of referral to the probation department and immediate sentencing.
After orally canvassing defendant, the court accepted the plea bargain and immediately sentenced him in accordance with the plea bargain.
On October 27, 2005, defendant requested a certificate of probable cause stating that at the time he entered his plea, he was medicated and did not know what he was doing. The court granted the request for the certificate of probable cause.
Defendant has appealed and at his request we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, possible issues to guide our review, and requesting this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record.
We provided defendant with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ Gaut
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Defendant and his counsel signed a written agreement setting forth the whole agreement and advising him of his constitutional rights, which he waived. Paragraph 13 of the plea bargain stated that defendant was not then under the influence of alcohol or any drugs, narcotics or medication.
