P. v. Garcia — Fear Not Law

<h1>P. v. Garcia</h1> Filed 10/6/06 P. v. Garcia CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="319" valign="top"> THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL CESAR GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. </td> <td width="319" valign="top"> E039926 (Super.Ct.No. BAF003763) OPINION </td> </tr> </table> APPEAL from the <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">Superior Court of Riverside County</a>. J. Thompson Hanks, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Holman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. On November 16, 2005, the defendant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a), <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">possession of a weapon or sharp instrument in a penal institution</a> as charged in count one of the information filed by the District Attorney of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Riverside County. </a> Thereafter, the defendant, represented by counsel, admitted the special allegations charged pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (c) - (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The remaining special allegations were dismissed in the interests of justice (Pen. Code, § 1385) and the defendant was committed to <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">state prision</a> for 6 years less custody credits. Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent</a> 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 <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">personal supplemental brief,</a> which he has not done. We have now concluded our <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">independent review</a> of the record and find no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P.J. We concur: HOLLENHORST J. McKINSTER J. Publication courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">San Diego pro bono legal advice</a>. Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Poway Property line Lawyers.</a>