P. v. Wright
Filed 10/10/06 P. v. Wright 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. RAYNIEL C. WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. | B191993 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA293266) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Michael S. Luros, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Rayniel C. Wright appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea of first degree burglary with an admission he committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). He also admitted previously suffering a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and having served a separate prison term for a felony. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to seven years in state prison.
Wright filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1385, People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and his sentence. 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 30, 2006 we advised Wright 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 Wright’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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT
ZELON, J.
We concur:
JOHNSON, Acting P. J. WOODS, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
