P. v. Tellez
Filed 9/13/07 P. v. Tellez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. TYLER JOHN TELLEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | E042146 (Super.Ct.No. INF056583) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Harold W. Hopp, Judge. Affirmed.
Allison Stanley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On January 3, 2007, in a plea to the court pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.5,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of section 496, subdivision (a) and section 148.9, subdivision (a), as charged in counts one and two of the information filed by the District Attorney of Riverside County.
Thereafter, and in accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was placed on a formal grant of probation for 36 months on condition he spend 55 days in local custody. The appropriate custody credits were awarded to defendant and defendants probation in case No. INM159239 was revoked and reinstated on the previous terms and conditions and also awarded the appropriate custody credits in that case.
Statement of Facts
A police officer with the City of Palm Springs in Riverside County testified that as he approached defendant, defendant stated that he had just had a fight with his girlfriend during which she dropped the purse he was holding in his hands. A search of defendant revealed a purse wrapped within the jacket which contained two checkbooks with the victims name along with a white porcelain object.
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.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
