P. v. Trujillo
Filed 3/22/07 P. v. Trujillo CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE MANUEL TRUJILLO, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B190898 (Super. Ct. No. NA056173) (Los Angeles County) |
Jose Manuel Trujillo appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation previously granted after his plea of no contest to residential burglary and misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, 459, 243, subd. (e)(1).) Appellant was placed on five years probation in 2003, and ordered to stay away from the victim, Consuelo Montes.
On April 5, 2006, following a contested hearing, the court found that appellant had violated probation by failing to stay away from Montes. The court sentenced appellant to a four-year middle term for burglary, with a concurrent one-year term for misdemeanor battery.
FACTS
Montes and appellant have two children who live with Montes. On January 8, 2006, Montes was home, in her bedroom, while the children were away. The front door was closed but not locked.
Appellant entered Montes bedroom and said that he wanted to see the children. Montes told him to leave because the children were not there. Appellant refused to leave before the children returned, and he prevented Montes from leaving the bedroom by grabbing her hair and pushing her.
Appellant and Montes were in the bedroom, arguing, when their children returned. Their 14-year-old son called the police. The police arrested appellant after forcing the bedroom door open.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On October 5, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions or arguments that he wanted us to consider. To date, we have received no response from appellant. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel has complied fully with her responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Cynthia A. Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
