P. v. Tamayo
Filed 3/1/06 P. v. Tamayo CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL GALLEGOS TAMAYO, Defendant and Appellant. | G035948 (Super. Ct. No. 05CF0088) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Douglas Hatchimonji, Judge. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that sets forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on appellant's behalf. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from appellant.
The order granting probation is affirmed.
FYBEL, J.
WE CONCUR:
SILLS, P. J.
RYLAARSDAM, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego Employee Lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And San Diego Lawyers Directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
