P. v. Carrino
Filed 8/2/07 P. v. Carrino CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID CARRINO, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B194520 (Super. Ct. No. 2005038151) (Ventura County) |
Appellant David Carrino appeals from the judgment entered following his guilt plea to felony failure to annually update registration. (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D))[1]He was sentenced to sixteen months in state prison. The court also restitution fines of $200. ( 1202.4, subd. (b) and 1202.45.) We affirm.
On October 23, 2005, appellant failed to annually update his registration. He had a duty to register as a sex offender as a consequence of a prior conviction. He pled guilty to felony failure to update annually ( 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)) and admitted a prior prison term. ( 667.5, subd. (b).)
Before sentencing, appellant's counsel declared a conflict and was replaced by a conflict defense attorney. After consulting with appellant, the conflict defense attorney reported that there were no legal grounds to withdraw the plea. The matter proceeded to sentencing. The trial court struck the prior prison term enhancement and sentenced appellant to the low term of 16 months in state prison on count one, with 145 days credit for time served.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On April 10, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter raising any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Appellant did not respond.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
PERREN, J.
Bruce A. Clark, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1]All statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.
