P. v. Smith
Filed 5/7/07 P. v. Smith CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODNEY SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. | B192559 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA282255) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Lisa M. Chung, Judge. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and
Richard L. Fitzer, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
In July 2005, appellant Rodney Smith pled no contest to petty theft with a prior conviction for that offense (Pen. Code, 666) and admitted to one prior prison term offense within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to four years in state prison, but execution of the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on formal probation for three years. In June 2006, after hearing, appellant was found in violation of his probation. Probation was terminated and the four year sentence was imposed. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On or before November 9, 2006, counsel sent appellant a copy of the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief, and advised appellant that he could submit a supplemental brief in his own behalf, within 30 days. On November 13, 2006 we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit by brief or letter any argument or contention he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
MOSK, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
