P. v. Quezada
Filed 3/23/06 P. v. Quezada CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DELFINO DELGADO QUEZADA, Defendant and Appellant. | B181655 (Super. Ct. No. LA 046484) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Susan M. Speer, Judge. Affirmed.
________
Kiana Sloan-Hillier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________
On July 17, 2004, defendant Delfino Quezada took a water heater and a can of paint from a Home Depot store without paying for them. When detained by a loss prevention security officer, Quezada failed to produce a receipt for either item, which led to his arrest.
The information charged Quezada with petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666),[1] based on allegations of three prior convictions and imprisonments for burglary, grand theft, and attempted theft. The information also alleged that Quezada was ineligible for probation due to two prior felony drug convictions.The first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of a guilty verdict. The second trial resulted in a guilty verdict and Quezada, who did not contest any of the prior conviction allegations, received the mid-term of two years in state prison. Quezada appealed from the judgment of conviction.
Quezada's appointed counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 23, 2005, we sent Quezada a notice stating that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On January 5, 2006, the notice was returned, undelivered, with a notation that Quezada had been released on parole. Our court clerk then contacted the state prison where Quezada was last housed and learned that Quezada had been released to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service for deportation on December 22, 2005. Upon contacting Quezada's attorney, our clerk ascertained that on December 5, 2006, counsel had mailed to Quezada both the appellate record and a letter explaining his right to file a supplemental brief, both of which were presumably received because they were not returned to counsel. Based on counsel's representations, we conclude that Quezada received from his counsel the appellate record and letter explaining his right to file a supplemental brief that were mailed on December 5, 2006, more than two weeks before his release on December 22, 2006.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Quezada's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, Acting P.J.
VOGEL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
