P. v. Joubert
Filed 5/15/08 P. v. Joubert CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY GAIL JOUBERT, Defendant and Appellant. | D051976 (Super. Ct. No. SCD205684) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Mary Gail Joubert entered a negotiated guilty plea to petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, 484/666) and admitted she had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Under the plea agreement, which called for a stipulated prison term of two years, the prosecution agreed to dismiss a burglary count and three prior prison term allegations. The trial court denied Joubert's motion to withdraw her plea and sentenced her to two years in prison. The court did not award any presentence custody credits. Later, after an ex parte request by appellate counsel, the court ordered Joubert receive 13 days of presentence credit.
FACTS
On April 3, 2007, Joubert took $300 from the purse of a woman employee at a furniture store. The money was recovered inside the store.
In 1993 Joubert was convicted of receiving stolen property and served custodial time for the offense. (People v. Joubert (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 1993, No. CRN26339).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Joubert's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether the court erred by not awarding Joubert any presentence custody credits; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Joubert's motion to withdraw her plea.
We granted Joubert permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Joubert on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
