P. v. Clucas
Filed 6/26/08 P. v. Clucas CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICKY JOHN CLUCAS, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B204837 (Super. Ct. No. F407938) (San Luis Obispo County) |
Nicky John Clucas appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, 236).[1]Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months state prison and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), and victim restitution ( 1202.4, subd. (f)).
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable cause claiming that he was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel. ( 1237.5.) The trial court denied the request for certificate of probable cause on December 28, 2007.
The probation report states that appellant accused the victim of stealing property, knocked him down, and repeatedly struck him with a pole, causing the victim to suffer a leg fracture and knee injuries. Before the change of plea, the trial court rejected a proposed negotiated plea for probation because appellant had prior convictions for murder and felony assault.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On May 5, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.
Dodie A. Harman, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Susan B. Gans-Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
