P. v. Buchanan
Filed 5/16/08 P. v. Buchanan CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DELMON LYNN BUCHANAN, Defendant and Appellant. | F053748 (Super. Ct. No. DF008201A) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. L. Bryce Chase, Judge.
William Malloy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On November 27, 2006, Kern County Sheriff Deputies attempted unsuccessfully to contact appellant, Delmon Lynn Buchanan, at his home because he had not registered as a sex offender since February 17, 2006. On March 4, 2007, Buchanan was arrested on a felony warrant that was issued in this case.
On March 26, 2007, the district attorney issued an information charging Buchanan with failure to register as a sex offender and alleging that Buchanan had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
On June 27, 2007, Buchanan pled no contest to failing to register and admitted the prior conviction allegation in exchange for a maximum term of 32 months and the dismissal of the remaining allegations.
On July 13, 2007, Buchanan filed a Romero [1] motion asking the court to strike the prior conviction allegation.
On August 13, 2007, the court denied Buchanans Romero motion and sentenced him to a 32-month term, the lower term of 16 months doubled to 32 months because of Buchanans prior strike conviction.
Buchanans appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Buchanan has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
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
*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
[1]People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
