P. v. Chisholm
Filed 4/19/07 P. v. Chisholm 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JOHN LAWRENCE CHISHOLM, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B192361 (Super. Ct. No. 29006000063) (Ventura County) |
John L. Chisholm appeals his conviction, by jury, of failing to update his registration as a sex offender annually (Pen. code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(C)(iii))[1] and of being a transient who failed to update his registration as a sex offender every 30 days. ( 290, subd. (a)(1)(C)(i).) The trial court placed appellant on formal probation for 36 months, on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days in county jail.
Appellant stipulated at trial that he was convicted of indecent exposure ( 314.1) on two separate occasions in July 1998, and that he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in October 1998. He previously registered several times in Santa Clara County, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County. Appellant last registered in November 2004 in Ventura County. At that time, the person who registered appellant explained the requirements to him. Appellant initialed a form stating he understood his obligations.
Appellant testified that, in 2004, he heard a voice over a police radio that told him he did not have to register anymore. The voice was a representative of NASA. Appellant continued to register after he heard the voice because a police officer told him that he needed something more formal, in writing. Appellant knew the registration rules but thought the voice had relieved him of the obligation register.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On March 9, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions that he wished to raise on appeal. On March 23, 2007, we received a letter from appellant stating that he wanted the police computers to reflect the pardon he received over the radio and that he wanted restitution because he was separated from his possessions when he was arrested.
Appellant's letter does not raise an arguable issue.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Steven E. Hintz, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Susan B. Gans-Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
