P. v. Sullivan
Filed 7/2/07 P. v. Sullivan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. HEIDI SULLIVAN, Defendant and Appellant. | E041293 (Super.Ct.No. FSB052974) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kenneth Barr, Judge. Affirmed.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On May 12, 2006, in case No. FSB052974, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed an information which alleged in counts one, two and three, violations of Penal Code section 422, criminal threats.
On May 15, 2006, defendant, represented by counsel pled guilty as charged. Thereafter, on July 5, 2006, defendant was committed to state prison for 16 months and in accordance with the negotiated disposition and the Vargas[1]waiver, counts two and three (Pen. Code, 422) were dismissed and defendant was awarded the appropriate custody credits.
statement of facts
On October 9, 2005, the San Bernardino Police Department recorded the criminal threats that defendant made to a police officer of that department. Defendant stated that she had emptied her bank account, purchased a gun, and that she was going to the officers residence to kill him.
Defendant appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
