P. v. Bell
Filed 3/30/06 P. v. Bell CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD BELL, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | D046786 (Super. Ct. No. SCD186451) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.
After the trial court granted the People's in limine motion to admit into evidence a 911 tape and denied a defense motion to dismiss the information as vindictive, Richard Bell, Jr., entered a negotiated guilty plea to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))[1] and admitted a prior strike (§§ 667 subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated four-year term: double the two-year lower term for inflicting corporal injury with a prior strike.[2] The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the People's in limine motion, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Bell's in limine motion.
We granted Bell permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Bell on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Lawyers.
.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Because Bell entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
