P. v. Schouten
Filed 3/9/07 P. v. Schouten CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER N. SCHOUTEN, Defendant and Appellant. | E041152 (Super.Ct.No. SWF015888) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Harold W. Hopp, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle C. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On June 2, 2006, in case No. SWF015888, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Health & Safety Code section 11378, possession for sale of
methamphetamine, as charged in count two of the felony complaint filed by the District Attorney of Riverside County. Defendant also admitted the Penal Code section 12022.1 special allegation filed in support of that count (out on bail enhancement).
Thereafter, and in accordance with the plea bargain, defendant was committed to state prison for 3 years 4 months less custody credits, the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken and defendants pleas of guilty taken in case Nos. SWF014132 and SWF012870 were ordered to run concurrent to the underlying case. (Pen. Code, 1385.)
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.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
RICHLI
J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
