P. v. Rico
Filed 1/30/07 P. v. Rico CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE LUIS RICO, Defendant and Appellant. | C051510 (Super. Ct. Nos. SF094030A, SF094638B) |
On February 4, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated settlement in case No. SF094638B, defendant Jose Luis Rico pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of three years, with probation being conditioned upon, inter alia, his obeying all laws.
On May 23, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated settlement in case No. SF094030A, defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)) and no contest to unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), a felony. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years for the felony and three years for the misdemeanor. Each grant of probation was conditioned upon, inter alia, that he obey all laws.
On August 24, 2005, defendants probation in the above two cases was summarily revoked based upon allegations that he violated his probation by committing the offenses set forth in Penal Code sections 273.5, 422, and 136.1, subdivision (b)(1). Following a probation revocation hearing for both cases, each grant of probation was formally revoked.
On October 31, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for concurrent terms of 16 months each for the methamphetamine possession and the unlawful taking of a vehicle. The court placed defendant on informal probation for the driving under the influence offense. In each case, the court imposed restitution fines of $200 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, plus a $135 laboratory fee for the methamphetamine possession (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a)).
FACTS RELATING TO THE VIOLATION OF PROBATION
Defendants wife, Aurora, testified that she was upset with defendant and had told him that she wanted to move to Los Angeles and stay with her family. On August 15, 2005, while at defendants mothers home, Aurora told defendant that she was going to the post office to mail a letter. Defendant asked his sister, Celia, to drive Aurora, but Aurora preferred to walk and left the house. Defendant and Celia followed in Celias car and defendant physically forced Aurora into the car. Because she was frightened of defendant, Aurora did not report the injuries to law enforcement until August 22. Aurora, who clearly did not want to testify, claimed that photographs showing her injuries were accidentally self-inflicted.
On August 22, 2005, Aurora reported the above incident to Lisa Acosta, who worked at the victim-witness desk of the district attorneys office. Acosta testified that Aurora showed her injuries to her forehead and a bruise on her arm, saying the injuries were caused by defendant pulling her into the car. Aurora also said that defendant had choked and punched her as she got into the car. Aurora said that when she got home on August 15, defendant kept her in her room, threatened not to help her get a visa if she called the police, and threatened her family.
Defendant and his mother both testified that defendant pulled Aurora into Celias car, but he did not strike, choke, or abuse Aurora.
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.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
