P. v. Thomas

Filed 2/17/06 P. v. Thomas CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael M. Dest, Judge. Affirmed.

Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant was charged by felony complaint filed August 9, 2005, with a violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4). The complaint further alleged a strike prior within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivision (b) and three prison priors within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).^[1]

Defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to the section 12020, subdivision (a) charge on August 19, 2005. In return for the plea, defendant's priors were to be dismissed, and an agreed upon three-year prison term was to be served concurrent to the term imposed for defendant's parole violation. Additionally, another pending felony case, case No. FSB050190, was to be dismissed.

Appellant waived his appellate rights and agreed to immediate sentencing. Defendant received the benefit of his plea bargain: a three-year state prison sentence with the appropriate conduct credits was imposed to be served concurrent to the term for his parole revocation, and his priors were dismissed.

Contrary to his waiver of appellate rights, defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 he has done. We have read and considered that brief.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

Acting P.J.

We concur:

GAUT

J.

KING

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyer, (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And San Diego Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.