P. v. Hunter
Filed 4/5/06 P. v. Hunter CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODD CHRISTOPHER HUNTER, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048573
(Super. Ct. No. 1092198)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Charles Stone, Judge.
William Davies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On June 9, 2005, appellant, Todd Christopher Hunter, pled guilty to one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). In exchange for his plea, an unrelated case (case No. 1092293) would be dismissed and Hunter would admit he violated his probation in case No. 1089699. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Hunter to the midterm of four years in case No. 1089699 and to a concurrent term of two years in the instant action.[1] The trial court dismissed case No. 1092293, ordered Hunter to pay a restitution fine and awarded applicable custody credits.
Hunter's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Hunter was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on November 14, 2005, we invited Hunter to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Lawyers.
*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
[1] Hunter was convicted in this action of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)).
