P. v. Esquivel — Fear Not Law

<h5>P. v. Esquivel</h5> Filed 9/27/06 P. v. Esquivel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Modoc) ---- <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="394" valign="top"> THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO DANIEL CUEVAS ESQUIVEL, Defendant and Appellant. </td> <td width="230" valign="top"> C050872 (Super. Ct. No. F05075) </td> </tr> </table> Pursuant to a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">negotiated disposition</a>, defendant Ricardo Daniel Cuevas Esquivel entered guilty pleas to seven felony counts of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">vandalism</a> (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a)(1) & (2)) in exchange for dismissal of 16 other counts of vandalism and a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. The court imposed an aggregate prison term of four years four months, consisting of the upper term of three years for one of the convictions, and consecutive terms of eight months each for two of the other convictions. The court chose the upper term, in part, based on the number and seriousness of defendant’s prior convictions and his poor prior performance on probation, and consecutive sentences because the crimes occurred at different times and had different victims. Defendant appealed, citing unspecified sentencing error. We appointed <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">counsel to represent</a> defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record to ascertain whether an <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable issue</a> exists, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In addition, counsel advised defendant of his right to file a <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">supplemental brief</a> within 30 days of the date of filing of the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief</a>. More than 30 days have passed since counsel’s brief was filed without receipt of communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">arguable error</a> that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. <h1>DISPOSITION</h1> The judgment is affirmed. RAYE , J. We concur: BLEASE , Acting P.J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J. Publication Courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California free legal resources</a>. Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Spring Valley Property line attorney.</a>