Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Yacuta

P. v. Yacuta

Filed 2/15/07 P. v. Yacuta CA4/2

NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATEDISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ARMANDO YACUTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

E040888

(Super.Ct.No. FSB54032)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. W. Robert Fawke, Judge. Affirmed.

Beatrice C. Tillman,under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance forPlaintiff and Respondent.

On January 11, 2006, in case No. FSB054032, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed aone-count felony complaint which charged defendant with

a violation of Penal Code section114, a felony use of false documents.

On March 13, 2006,pursuant to Penal Code sections 859a and 1192.5, defendant, represented bycounsel, pled guilty as charged in count one (Pen. Code, § 114).

Thereafter, on June 23, 2006, defendant was placed on a formal grant of probation for three (3) years onthe condition he spend 30 days in the local jail.

FACTS^{^[1]}

On December 20, 2005, defendant presented false identification as he entered the San Manuel Casino. Thefalse identification produced by defendant included a counterfeit Californiadrivers license along with a false social security card and Resident AlienCard. Defendant admitted that the identification cards were counterfeit andthat he was in the United States illegally.

Defendantappealed, 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 [87S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary ofthe facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertakea review of the entire record.

We offered thedefendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief,which he has not done.

We have now concludedour independent review of the recordand find no arguable issues.

The judgment isaffirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED INOFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P.J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

RICHLI

Publication Courtesy of SanDiego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

^{^[1]} The facts are taken from the probation report

Description	On January 11, 2006, in case No. FSB054032, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed aone-count felony complaint which charged defendant with a violation of Penal Code section 114, a felony use of false documents. On March 13, 2006,pursuant to Penal Code sections 859a and 1192.5, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty as charged in count one (Pen. Code, S 114). Thereafter, on June 23, 2006, defendant was placed on a formal grant of probation for three (3) years onthe condition he spend 30 days in the local jail. Court have concluded independent review of the recordand find no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.