P. v. Berryhill
Filed 10/21/08 P. v. Berryhill CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYLER JOHN BERRYHILL, Defendant and Appellant. | D052983 (Super. Ct. No. SCD210070) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frank A. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
Tyler John Berryhill entered negotiated guilty pleas to six counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460)[1]and admitted he had two prior serious/violent felony or strike convictions ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two prior serious felonies ( 667, subd. (a)(1)). As part of the plea bargain, Berryhill also admitted an allegation under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(21) that in one of the burglaries the victim was present. At sentencing, the trial court dismissed one of the prior strike convictions and sentenced Berryhill to 27 years four months in prison.
Berryhill did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
Between September 11, 2007 and November 6, 2007, Berryhill committed six residential burglaries. He generally entered the residences through open or unlocked windows, removed property from the homes and traveled by bicycle.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable issues: (1) whether Berryhill's plea was constitutionally valid; and (2) whether any issues related to the plea's validity can be raised on appeal.
We granted Berryhill permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Berryhill on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
