Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Chavez

P. v. Chavez

Filed 2/20/07 P. v. Chavez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MANUEL AYALA CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

G037045

(Super. Ct. No. 05CF2888)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John D. Conley, Judge. Affirmed.

Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; Manuel Ayala Chavez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Manuel Ayala Chavez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. We invited Chavez to file a supplemental brief, which he did. Chavez's supplemental brief is somewhat unusual as it appears to have been penned by a person other than Chavez. The brief begins, â€

Description	Court appointed counsel to represent Defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Court invited Defendant to file a supplemental brief, which he did. Defendant's supplemental brief is somewhat unusual as it appears to have been penned by a person other than Chavez. The brief begins, "I Mr. Lozolla am writing this for Mr. Chavez." Court also note that statements are made throughout the brief using both the first and third persons thereby creating confusion as to what statements are Defendant's assertions and what are merely Court have also independently examined the record. Court found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.