P. v. Acosta
Filed 3/21/08 P. v. Acosta CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN ACOSTA, Defendant and Appellant. | B197751 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA301148) |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Peter Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed.
William Flenniken, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Edwin Acosta appeals from judgment entered after conviction following his negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine. Defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.[1] The court sentenced Acosta to the agreed term of 16 months running concurrently with his sentence in Case No. BA301881.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On November 14, 2007, we advised Acosta he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
Acostas no contest plea and failure to apply for and obtain a certificate of probable cause limit the potential scope of his appeal to grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the pleas validity and/or the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. (Pen. Code, 1237.5, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have examined the entire record and have not found any arguable issues. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, J.*
We concur:
RUBIN, Acting P. J. FLIER, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The appellate record contains no probation report, and Acosta waived a preliminary hearing.
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
