P. v. Reilly
Filed 3/22/07 P. v. Reilly CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL REILLY, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B190654 (Super. Ct. No. F371389) (San Luis Obispo County) |
Christopher Michael Reilly appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of felony battery on a police officer (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (c)(2)), felony resisting an executive officer ( 69), and two counts of misdemeanor loitering or prowling ( 647, subd. (h)).[1] The court subsequently found that Reilly had suffered a prior conviction, as contemplated by section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced him to three years in state prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed him on probation. Reilly was also ordered to pay restitution, fines, and fees.
On April 16, 2005, Arroyo Grande resident Michael Nordstrom discovered Reilly in his backyard. When Nordstrom went outside to confront him, Reilly jumped over the neighbor's fence. Reilly climbed back over the fence into Nordstrom's yard and asked him some questions, then climbed back over the neighbor's fence. The police responded to Nordstrom's call, and found Reilly in another neighbor's yard drinking from a garden hose. As one of the officers attempted to handcuff Reilly, he pulled his hands away and turned toward the officer. After the officers forced Reilly to the ground, he violently struggled with them. At one point, Reilly brought his knees up against one of the officers. When the officers ordered him to stop struggling, he started kicking them. After briefly resting, Reilly continued the struggle before he was ultimately handcuffed.
We appointed counsel to represent Reilly on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On December 19, 2006, we advised Reilly that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter raising any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. He did not respond.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Reillys attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
COFFEE, J.
Michael L. Duffy, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Lisa M. J. Spillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
