P. v. Monteverde
Filed 10/27/08 P. v. Monteverde CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN CHRISTOPHER MONTEVERDE, Defendant and Appellant. | C058322 (Super. Ct. No. CM026643) |
Defendant John Monteverde had a domestic dispute with his ex-wife, then absconded with her car, her ATM card, her credit card and $800 she had in cash. Police went to defendants mothers house, where they found defendant in possession of the car keys and the stolen car locked in the garage.
In February 2007, defendant entered a plea of no contest to unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal with a Harvey[1]waiver of a charge of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a).)
The court entered judgment in May 2007, placing defendant on 36 months of formal probation and ordering him to serve 90 days in county jail.
In June 2007, a petition was filed alleging defendant violated the terms and conditions of probation by failing to report to probation and failing to report to the county jail as required.
In January 2008, defendant moved to withdraw his plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1018. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the 180-day deadline proscribed by that section and denied defendants motion without prejudice. Thereafter, defendant admitted he violated probation as alleged in the petition. The court terminated probation as unsuccessful, sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in state prison and imposed specified fees and fines. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, along with a request for certificate of probable cause, which was granted.
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 and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
DAVIS , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
