P. v. Galindo

Filed 3/17/06 P. v. Galindo CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from an order and a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael K. Kellogg, Judge. Affirmed.

Ronnie Duberstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

Eduardo Galindo, who removed coins from a newspaper vending machine, was charged in July 2004 with petty theft with priors and with allegations that he had served three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 666, 667.5, subd. (b).) In September, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Galindo's competency (Pen. Code, § 1368), and two medical experts were appointed to evaluate him (Evid. Code, § 730). In October, the trial court found Galindo competent to stand trial. In November, Galindo's Marsden motion was denied. In December, he waived his constitutional rights, pled no contest to the charge, and admitted the priors. The trial court found Galindo guilty, imposed a three-year high-term sentence, suspended execution of sentence, and placed Galindo on probation for three years (with jail time and the usual conditions plus an order to stay away from all coin-operated vending machines). In January 2005, the People requested revocation of Galindo's probation and probation was summarily revoked. In March, at the conclusion of a formal probation revocation hearing, the trial court found Galindo had violated his probation, re-sentenced him to the original high term of three years, and imposed the required fines.

Galindo filed a notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. After reviewing the record, appellate counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 12, 2005, we notified Galindo that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues he wanted us to consider. Galindo has not responded. Based on our independent examination of the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

The order revoking probation and the judgment are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

VOGEL, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, Acting P.J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Lawyers.