P. v. Stancil
Filed 6/19/07 P. v. Stancil CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT CLIFTON STANCIL, Defendant and Appellant. | H030745 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC506621) |
On February 24, 2006, an information was filed by the Santa Clara District Attorney alleging that defendant Robert Clifton Stancil resisted, delayed, and obstructed a peace officer in the discharge of his duties, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)) and drove and took a vehicle, a felony (Veh. Code, 10851. subd. (a)). Defendant waived his right to a preliminary examination and pleaded no contest on April 24, 2006, to resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)), and unauthorized use or theft of a vehicle, a felony (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). Defendant was placed on formal probation for three years on condition that he serve the stipulated term of 90 days in jail with credit for 12 days, along with additional terms and conditions.[1] Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case, indicates that no details of the incident are contained in the probation report, and raises no specific issues on appeal. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have not received any written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelley (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
__________________________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
MIHARA, J.
_________________________
DUFFY, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[1]There are no facts contained in the probation report and the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing.
