P. v. Butron
Filed 6/19/06 P. v. Butron CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY KAKAR BUTRON, Defendant and Appellant. | H029696 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. BB515949) |
Defendant Jeffrey Kakar Butron was charged with one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a), count 1)[1] and one count of petty theft with specified priors (§ 666, count 2). It was also alleged that defendant had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). According to the complaint, defendant had unlawfully taken personal property, jewelry and other merchandise from a Target store.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the prior convictions in exchange for a promise that he would be sentenced to the mitigated term of 16 months in prison. The 16 months was to include the time for his violation of probation in a separate case. The trial court sentenced defendant on count 1 to the agreed-upon 16 months, dismissed count 2, and struck the prior conviction allegations. The court imposed a restitution fine of $220 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and imposed and stayed a parole revocation fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45). The court also imposed a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8) and a $10 fine plus penalty assessment (§ 1202.5) and ordered defendant to submit buccal swab samples, prints, blood specimens, and other biological samples as required by section 296.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Attorneys.
