P. v. Gomez
Court appointed counsel to represent Ricardo Rodriguez Gomez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts of the case, noting that Gomez admitted violating his probation after having pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine while in jail. (See Pen. Code, 4573.6.) Both the admission and the guilty plea were properly taken and recorded. (See Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122; see also People v. Garcia (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 134.) The trial court then imposed a prison sentence of two years for the substance offense. The notice of appeal limited the issues to those affecting the sentence; thus, no certificate of probable cause was obtained or needed. Appointed counsel did not argue against Gomez, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf following the trial courts correction of the abstract of judgment done in response to notification by the Department of Corrections. Court have examined the record and agree with counsels assessment that no arguable issue exists. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Gomez was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from Gomez. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Gomez