P. v. Loggins
Filed 3/17/06 P. v. Loggins CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Nevada)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW LEE LOGGINS, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C050019
(Super. Ct. No. SF03535B)
|
Defendant Matthew Lee Loggins, Jr., entered a stipulated plea of no contest to aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))[1] and resisting an officer by force or violence (§ 69). He also admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and a street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). In exchange for his plea, additional counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the stipulation to the midterm of three years for the aggravated assault, doubled to six years due to his prior strike, a concurrent two years for resisting the officer and a consecutive two years for the gang enhancement, for an aggregate term of eight years in state prison. Defendant was credited with 159 actual days of custody credit, but not awarded conduct credit because he had waived conduct credit as part of his plea.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
MORRISON , Acting P. J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
