P. v. Estrada
Filed 9/10/07 P. v. Estrada CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES M. ESTRADA, Defendant and Appellant. | D050413 (Super. Ct. No. SCN214989) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Estrada entered a negotiated guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code,[1] 290, subd. (g)(2)) and admitted a strike ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court sentenced him to prison for two years eight months (twice the lower term). Estrada appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 2006, Oceanside police officers arrested Estrada after they found him intoxicated in public. A records check revealed he was required to register as a sex offender. He had not registered as required within five days after his release from prison in 2006, or after his release from jail on June 12 and July 10.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, he lists, as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether before pleading guilty, Estrada was advised of the consequences of his plea and was advised of and waived his constitutional rights; (2) whether the court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the strike; and (3) whether he was correctly sentenced.
We granted Estrada permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Estrada has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
