P. v. Williams
Filed 10/18/06 P. v. Williams CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHENELL WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | E040546 (Super.Ct.No. FSB052977) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. W. Robert Fawke, Judge. Affirmed.
Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On November 3, 2005, defendant took merchandise worth $311.87 from a Marshall’s Department Store in San Bernardino County.
On November 8, 2005, in case number PSB052977, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed a 1-count felony complaint which alleged a violation of Penal Code section 666, petty theft with priors, as well as special allegations filed pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d).
Thereafter, on December 30, 2005, pursuant to Penal Code section 859a, the defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to count one as charged in case number PSB052977 and the special allegations were dismissed in the interests of justice. (Pen. Code, § 1385.)
In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant agreed “that she would give up her right to withdraw the plea and the trial court would no longer be bound by the plea agreement should she violate any term of her O.R. release.” On May 2, 2006, the defendant, again represented by counsel, was found to be in violation of her Cruz[1] waiver and she was committed to state prison for 3 years less custody credits.
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 the 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
