P. v. Anderson

Filed 7/3/07 P. v. Anderson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Siskiyou)

----

After defendant Donald Lee Anderson stole a laptop computer while visiting a hospital, and was later found to be in possession of items stolen from other locations, he pled guilty to one count of felony theft and four counts of felonious petty theft. (Case No. 05-1053.) The plea agreement permitted defendant to be out of custody until the sentencing hearing, when he would receive a sentence of three years in state prison. If, however, he failed to appear at the sentencing hearing, he would be sentenced to a maximum term of five years and eight months. (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.) Defendant waived his right to have a jury determine sentencing factors. (Blakely v. Washington(2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403].)

Defendant failed to appear for sentencing on August 16, 2005, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Thereafter, defendant unlawfully obtained Vicodin by fraudulently representing to a pharmacy that he had authority to pick up a Vicodin prescription belonging to one Thomas Lynn Davis where, in fact, he did not. Defendant pled guilty to obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, and failing to appear in court as ordered. (Case No. 05-2186.) The negotiated plea specified that he would receive a term of 16 months to be served consecutively to the sentence of five years and eight months that would be imposed in case No. 05-1053.

In accordance with the plea agreements, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years in state prison (five years and eight months in case No. 05-1053, plus a consecutive term of one year and four months in case No. 05-2186). In case No. 05-1053, he was ordered to pay a $1,000 restitution and another $1,000 restitution fine that was suspended unless his parole is revoked. In case No. 05-2186, he was ordered to pay a $400 restitution and another $400 restitution fine that was suspended unless his parole is revoked. He appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

SCOTLAND, P.J.

We concur:

MORRISON , J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.