P. v. Taylor
Filed 8/15/07 P. v. Taylor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MONTRELL LAMONTE TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. | E041885 (Super.Ct.No. FVA21254) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Brent F. Romney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On August 10, 2004, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 487(c), grand theft person, and admitted the special allegation filed pursuant to that count. Thereafter, defendant was placed on a formal grant of probation on condition he spend 365 days in the local jail. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the People and in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
On April 14, 2006, a second petition for revocation of probation was filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino and at the conclusion of combined hearings on November 14, 2006, defendant, again represented by counsel, was found to be in violation of his formal grant of probation. Defendants formal grant of probation was permanently revoked and he was committed to state prison for seven years, and awarded the appropriate custody credits.
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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.
KING
J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
