Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Ruiz

P. v. Ruiz

Filed 10/25/07 P. v. Ruiz CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

RUSBEL RAZO RUIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

H030329

(Monterey County

Super. Ct. No. SS053153)

Defendant, Rusbel Razo Ruiz appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211), and found a weapons allegation to be true. (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Based on this conviction, defendants probation was revoked in another case arising from a 2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code 11350.) After the trial court denied the defendants motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of an interpreter, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm on both cases for a total of three years for the burglary and weapons charges and eight months for the possession charge, to be served consecutively. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

We have noted, however, that while the abstract of judgment properly lists the sentence imposed in the itemized portion of the abstract, the total time calculation incorrectly lists the total sentence as three years, instead of three years and eight months, the actual time imposed. We will therefore affirm the judgment with direction to the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect the sentence imposed.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect the sentence imposed and forward a copy of the amended abstract to the department of corrections.

_____________________________________

rushing, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

PREMO, J.

_________________________________

ELIA, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

Description	Defendant, Rusbel Razo Ruiz appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211), and found a weapons allegation to be true. (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Based on this conviction, defendants probation was revoked in another case arising from a 2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code 11350.) After the trial court denied the defendants motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of an interpreter, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm on both cases for a total of three years for the burglary and weapons charges and eight months for the possession charge, to be served consecutively. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.