P. v. Slater
Filed 10/18/07 P. v. Slater 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RONALD WILLIAM SLATER, Defendant and Appellant. | E042462 (Super.Ct.Nos. RIF73767 & CR70463) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert D. Macomber, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On August 30, 1996, in case No. CR70463, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty and was placed on a grant of probation for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Thereafter, probation was terminated on September 27, 1999.
On May 21, 1997, in case No. RIF73767, defendant, again represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 12020(a) and was placed on a formal grant of probation. Defendants probation in this case was terminated on January 22, 2001.
Thereafter, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, subdivision (a), defendant, again represented by counsel, filed motions in case Nos. CR70463 and RIF73767 to reduce the felonies to misdemeanor violations and, then, to have the charges dismissed. During argument on the defendants motions, the prosecutor commented that defendant is not qualified for the relief under 1203.4. And I would say under two cases that he committed crimes while he was still on probation, and the trial court responded by commenting, That bothers me, too, when you brought that up. Im going to deny the motion at this time without prejudice to it being reapplied for at some reasonable date. On February 2, 2007, the trial court denied the defendants motions without prejudice.
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:
McKINSTER
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
