P. v. Gomez
Filed 5/31/07 P. v. Gomez CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO RODRIGUEZ GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | G037522 (Super. Ct. No. 04CF0066) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
We appointed counsel to represent Ricardo Rodriguez Gomez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts of the case, noting that Gomez admitted violating his probation after having pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine while in jail. (See Pen. Code, 4573.6.) Both the admission and the guilty plea were properly taken and recorded. (See Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122; see also People v. Garcia (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 134.) The trial court then imposed a prison sentence of two years for the substance offense. The notice of appeal limited the issues to those affecting the sentence; thus, no certificate of probable cause was obtained or needed.
Appointed counsel did not argue against Gomez, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf following the trial courts correction of the abstract of judgment done in response to notification by the Department of Corrections. We have examined the record and agree with counsels assessment that no arguable issue exists.[1] (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Gomez was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from Gomez.
The judgment is affirmed.
SILLS, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
ARONSON, J.
FYBEL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] It appears that the defendant received one day of presentence credit in excess of that which he had actually earned, assuming the number of days of actual custody were correctly announced to the court by Gomezs counsel. The issue does not warrant further correction.
