P. v. Schofield
Filed 7/3/06 P. v. Schofield 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES EDWARD SCHOFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. | E039713 (Super.Ct.No. FRE05130) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Arthur Harrison, Judge. Affirmed.
Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant was placed on probation for violating Penal Code section 646.9. After violating probation and being subsequently reinstated, defendant petitioned to have his probation terminated. The court declined. Defendant subsequently filed his notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause. His request was rejected.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We have invited defendant to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
RICHLI
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Real Estate Attorney.
