P. v. Hasley
Filed 8/15/06 P. v. Hasley CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN ALLEN HASLEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
F049402
(Super. Ct. No. 1099042)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Edward M. Lacy, Jr., Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On November 11, 2005, appellant, John Allen Hasley, pled guilty to possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). On that same date the court sentenced appellant to a 32-month term, the mitigated term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of Hasley's prior strike conviction.
Hasley's appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Hasley has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Further, following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Hill, J., and Kane, J.
