P. v. Budinich
Filed 8/13/13 P. v. Budinich CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
PAUL J. BUDINICH,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E058484
(Super.Ct.No.
FWV1203016)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
County. Cara D. Hutson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Beatrice
C. Tillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
and appellant Paul J. Budinich was charged by felony complaint with
count 1.) The complaint also alleged
that he had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), that he was eligible for
imprisonment in the state prison due to a prior serious or violent felony
conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(3)), and he was not eligible for
probation (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4)).
Defendant
entered a plea agreement and pled no
contest to count 1. In accordance with
the plea agreement, the court dismissed the remaining allegations, sentenced
him to three years in state prison, and awarded 140 days of presentence custody
credits. Pursuant to the agreement,
defendant also admitted that, in case no. FWV1002080, he violated the term of
his probation that he violate no law.
The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to two years in
served of 178 days, to run concurrent to the term imposed in the instant case.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
Counsel
stipulated that the police report and complaint provided a factual basis for
the plea. On November 29, 2012, the police received a report
that defendant was walking in and around cars, using a flashlight, in the early
morning hours. Defendant got into a car
and left the area. The officer
responding to the call located defendant and conducted a traffic stop. The officer asked to search his car, and
defendant consented. The officer found a
glove in the car that contained a dime-sized piece of a white crystalline
substance, which he recognized as methamphetamine.
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed and, upon
his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority
of People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting
forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable issue: whether defendant was sentenced in accordance
with his plea agreement. Counsel has also requested this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an
opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record
for potential error.
We have now concluded our
independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
