P. v. Espejo
Filed 4/8/08 P. v. Espejo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JEFFREY ESPEJO, Defendant and Appellant. | E043425 (Super.Ct.No. RIF129840) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Douglas E. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was charged by amended felony complaint with theft from an elder adult (Pen. Code.,[1] 368, subd. (d); count 1), residential burglary ( 459; count 2), and dissuading a witness. ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 3.) Count 3 further alleged the victim was an elder person under section 667.9, subdivision (a). The information further alleged appellant served a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Pursuant to section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to counts 1 and 3 in exchange for an agreed four-year prison term and dismissal of the remaining count and special allegations.
However, prior to sentencing, defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was heard and denied on May 18, 2007.
Thereafter, in accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant was committed to state prison for four years and awarded the appropriate custody credits. The remaining count and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney and in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence of other matters not affecting the validity of the plea.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
According to the amended complaint, on February 3, 2006, defendant stole money or property in excess of $400 from an elder and dependent adult person (count 1), and on the same date, defendant used force or threats to dissuade the victim from reporting a crime or testifying.
DISCUSSION
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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
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
/s/ RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
/s/ HOLLENHORST
J.
/s/ GAUT
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] All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless indicated.
