P. v. Dent
Filed 10/18/07 P. v. Dent 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LAURA MARIE DENT, Defendant and Appellant. | E042349 (Super.Ct.No. SWF014939) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael S. Hider, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced Sup. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 21, 2006, in case No. SWF014939, pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.5,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of sections 459 (count one, residential burglary) and 496(a) (count five, receiving stolen property). In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for four (4) years less custody credits and the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney and in the interests of justice. ( 1385).
Statement of Facts
On December 18, 2005, the victims observed defendant pedaling away from their garage on their $1,700 mountain bike. The victims ran after defendant, who was having difficulty pedaling the mountain bike. The victims initially apprehended defendant but after a brief struggle, defendant escaped. Defendant was arrested a few days later after numerous items of stolen property were found in her garage.
Defendant appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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 the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
