P. v. Martin
Filed 7/3/07 P. v. Martin CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN SHERROD MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant. | E042290 (Super.Ct.No. SWF018857) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Cormel Schaeffer, Temporary Judge.* (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2006, defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)); in return, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and defendant was promised a grant of formal probation under Proposition 36. The parties stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea. On the same day, in accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was placed on formal probation under various terms and conditions, including completing a drug program. Proceedings were then continued to December 8, 2006, for proof of enrollment.[1]
On December 8, 2006, defendant failed to appear, a warrant was issued for his arrest, and probation was revoked.
On January 10, 2007, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the November 17, 2006, judgment. He also requested a certificate of probable cause, which was granted on January 22, 2007.
II
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P.J.
McKINSTER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
* Although the minute order indicates that Judge David B. Downing presided over the November 17, 2006, hearing, it appears from the reporters transcript and the signature on the plea form that Judge Pro Tem Schaeffer actually presided over that proceeding.
[1] Defendant was not ordered released, as he had an Orange County hold on him at the jail. Following the plea, defendant was transferred to Orange County.
