P. v. Williams
Filed 10/25/07 P. v. Williams CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | B196559 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA071050) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed.
Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Robert Anderson appeals from an order of the superior court dated January 8, 2007, denying his motion and order for subpoena duces tecum for medical and grievance records from the Los Angeles County jail between the dates of July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006. Previously, on August 3, 2006, appellant pled guilty to second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, 459) and admitted he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony or juvenile adjudication within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) through (d) and 667, subds. (b) through (i)) and served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for seven years, and the charge of petty theft with prior convictions (Pen. Code, 666) and allegations of numerous prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5 were dismissed.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On July 17, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
