legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Wyatt

P. v. Wyatt
10:24:2006

P. v. Wyatt



Filed 10/3/06 P. v. Wyatt CA2/7







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION SEVEN










THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


DARRIN JONELL WYATT,


Defendant and Appellant.



B190699


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. GA055285)



APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.


Judson W. Morris, Judge. Affirmed.


Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


______________________________


Darrin Jonell Wyatt pleaded no contest to committing second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on three years of formal probation. The court summarily revoked Wyatt’s probation, declared a doubt as to his competency, and suspended criminal proceedings (Pen. Code, § 1368). Following a hearing, Wyatt was found competent and criminal proceedings resumed (Pen. Code, § 1370). As the result of a contested hearing, Wyatt was found in violation of his probation. He was sentenced to three years in state prison.


We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.


After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief“ in which no issues were raised. On August 18, 2006, we advised Wyatt he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.


We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Wyatt’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)


The judgment is affirmed.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS





WOODS. J.



We concur:





PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J.





Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.


Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.






Description Defendant pled no contest to committing second degree commercial burglary. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on three years of formal probation. The court summarily revoked defendant’s probation, declared a doubt as to his competency, and suspended criminal proceedings. Following a hearing, defendant was found competent and criminal proceedings resumed. As the result of a contested hearing, defendant was found in violation of his probation. Defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison. Court examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. The judgment is affirmed.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale