P. v. Paz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 11/1/13 
P. v. Paz CA

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 
>

THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,                           v.   JOSE MADRIGAL PAZ,   Defendant and Appellant.

F064521   (Super. Ct. No. MF48046)     >OPINION

 

THE COURThref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

            APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Merced
County.  John D. Kirihara, Judge.

            Barbara
Michel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

 

-ooOoo-

 

 

 

 

>INTRODUCTION

            On March 21, 2008, appellant, Jose Madrigal Paz, was
convicted of violating Penal Code section 12025, subdivision (a) for carrying a
concealed weapon and placed on probation for 36 months.  On September 27, 2010, an affidavit was filed
alleging appellant violated his probation by committing attempted murder in an
unrelated case (Merced Superior Court case No. CRM12907).  On February 22, 2012, the trial court
terminated appellant’s probation in the instant action and sentenced him to two
years, to be served concurrently with his sentence of 32 years to life for his
convictions in the other action.  Appellate
counsel has filed a brief seeking independent
review of the case by this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

            Appellant’s
appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening
brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests
this court to review the record independently. 
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)  The
opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating
that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court.  By letter on December 20, 2012, we invited
appellant to submit additional briefing. 
To date, he has not done so.

            After
independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable legal or factual issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed.