P. v. Tennial
Filed 4/6/07 P. v. Tennial CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASPER RICK TENNIAL, Defendant and Appellant. | C051188 (Super. Ct. No. 62050422) |
Pursuant to a negotiated settlement, defendant Jasper Rick Tennial pleaded no contest to conspiracy to commit burglary (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a), 459), guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted an allegation of a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d)). In exchange for his pleas and admission he received the dismissal of several other counts and a promise of no greater a sentence than four years.
In accordance with the settlement, the court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison, consisting of the low term of 32 months (low term of 16 months doubled because of the strike) for the conspiracy, plus a consecutive eight months
(1/3 midterm of two years) for the methamphetamine possession. The court also imposed restitution fines of $800 pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45.
FACTS
Defendant was detained by police after two coconspirators attempted to cash forged checks at a bank. A search of defendant disclosed baggies of methamphetamine, and a search of a car next to which defendant had been standing disclosed counterfeit checks made out to defendant.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
We concur:
RAYE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
