legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 
P. v. Esquivel
P. v. Esquivel
10/25/06

P. v. Esquivel



Filed 9/27/06 P. v. Esquivel CA3





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED



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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT


(Modoc)


----








THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


RICARDO DANIEL CUEVAS ESQUIVEL,


Defendant and Appellant.



C050872



(Super. Ct. No. F05075)





Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant Ricardo Daniel Cuevas Esquivel entered guilty pleas to seven felony counts of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a)(1) & (2)) in exchange for dismissal of 16 other counts of vandalism and a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.


The court imposed an aggregate prison term of four years four months, consisting of the upper term of three years for one of the convictions, and consecutive terms of eight months each for two of the other convictions. The court chose the upper term, in part, based on the number and seriousness of defendant’s prior convictions and his poor prior performance on probation, and consecutive sentences because the crimes occurred at different times and had different victims.


Defendant appealed, citing unspecified sentencing error. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record to ascertain whether an arguable issue exists, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In addition, counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have passed since counsel’s brief was filed without receipt of communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.


DISPOSITION


The judgment is affirmed.


RAYE , J.


We concur:


BLEASE , Acting P.J.


CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.


Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.


Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

Details Discussion (0) Print Rate Report


0/5 based on 0 votes. The median rating is 0.

Views: 0 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

Previous Article

    Home | Contacts | Submit New Article | Site Leaders | Search
    © 2005 Fearnotlaw.com