P. v. Pankey
Filed 10/24/06 P. v. Pankey CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW JAMES PANKEY, Defendant and Appellant. | D048035 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD163979, SCD166253) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.
In San Diego County Superior Court case No. SCD163979 (case No. SCD163979), after the court denied a motion to disclose the identity of an informant, Andrew James Pankey entered a negotiated guilty plea to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) while personally armed with a semi-automatic handgun (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (c)). In San Diego County Superior Court case No. SCD166253 (case No. SCD166253), before sentencing in case No. SCD163979, Pankey entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawfully possessing a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (c)(1).) On October 8, 2002, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years in both cases.
On February 25, 2005, the court revoked probation in both cases after Pankey admitted that he had failed to remain law abiding. The court sentenced him to prison for six years: the two-year lower term for possessing methamphetamine in case No. SCD163979 enhanced by the four-year middle term for being armed with a firearm. The court imposed a concurrent term in case No. SCD166253, suspended execution of sentence and ordered a California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) evaluation.
On December 20, 2005, CRC returned Pankey to court. CRC acknowledged that Pankey had followed the CRC rules, but advised the court that he was ineligible for CRC commitment. Recognizing Pankey's compliance with the CRC program, the court modified Pankey's sentence to five years: the two-year lower term for possessing methamphetamine enhanced by the three-year lower term for being armed with a firearm. The court imposed a concurrent term for unlawfully possessing a firearm. The court anticipated Pankey would be released from custody in approximately 120 days. On April 11, 2006, the court recalled the sentence after Pankey's counsel informed the court that the sentence the court had imposed would result in Pankey having to serve nearly a year and a half in custody, rather than the 120 days the court had intended. The court placed Pankey on probation in case No. SCD163979, and terminated probation forthwith. In case No. SCD166253, the court again imposed the two-year middle term for possessing a firearm. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).) [1]
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable, issue whether Pankey received the sentence the parties understood he would received at the time he admitted the probation violation.
We granted Pankey permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Pankey on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] Because Pankey entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
