P. v. Carr
Filed 12/7/07 P. v. Carr 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARVIN E. CARR, Defendant and Appellant. | E043070 (Super.Ct.No. FSB054762) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Donna G. Garza, Judge. Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant pled guilty to forgery (Pen. Code, 484f(a))[1]and admitted having suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term. (667.5(b).) As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced to the agreed to term of four years in prison. There is no certificate of probable cause in the record before this court.
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, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which was read and considered.
Facts
On February 27, 2006, copies of social security cards, California drivers licenses and tax returns in names other than defendants containing those persons birth dates, social security numbers, addresses and credit card numbers were found at his home. Defendant told police that he possessed these items in order to sell them to others.
Defendants contentions
In his 10-page personal supplemental brief, defendant contends that the upper term the trial court imposed for his conviction was improper because the court below failed to state reasons for its selection of that term. Additionally, defendant contends that the sentencing court used his 2002 prior conviction both to impose the upper term and to enhance his sentence pursuant to section 667.5(b). However, defendants upper term was the sentence he agreed to as part of his plea bargain. The sentencing court, accordingly, did not state reasons for imposing this term. Therefore, there could have been no dual use of the 2002 conviction.
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
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
