P. v. Robles
Filed 10/17/06 P. v. Robles 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. MARIO RENE ROBLES, Defendant and Appellant. | E040285 (Super.Ct.No. FVA21779) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const.,art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Patricia A. Andreoni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On January 19, 2005, the defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to count one, a violation of Penal Code section 264.1, forcible rape while acting in concert, as charged in a five-count information filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant was placed on a formal grant of probation for 5 years on condition he spend 365 days in the local jail and the remaining counts were dismissed on motion of the District Attorney and in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
Between May 2, 2005, and February 9, 2006, defendant’s probation was revoked and reinstated on two separate occasions. However, on the latter date the defendant, again represented by counsel, was found to be in violation of his grant of probation and committed to state prison for the previously imposed and stayed term of seven years. The defendant was also awarded the appropriate custody credits at that time.
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.