P. v. Gaussoin
Filed 3/5/10 P. v. Gaussoin CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL E. GAUSSOIN, Defendant and Appellant. | C062673 (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF0623, CRF07449) |
On April 21, 2006, in case No. CRF0623, defendant pled no contest to one count of battery on a cohabitant. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years.
On June 21, 2007, the trial court found defendant had violated his probation, but reinstated him on probation with the same terms and conditions.
On July 27, 2007, the trial court again found defendant in violation of probation, and again reinstated him on probation on September 7, 2007.
Also on July 27, 2007, in case No. CRF07449, defendant pled no contest to one count of battery on a cohabitant with a prior similar conviction. On September 7, 2007, the court placed defendant on probation in this case and ordered him to complete six months of residential counseling.
On March 30, 2009, defendant was found in violation of his probation in both cases, based on his plea in a third case.[1] On June 8, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years in prison in case No. CRF07449, then suspended execution of sentence through April 21, 2011, and placed defendant on probation. Simultaneously, in case No. CRF0623, the court sentenced defendant to one year in prison, consecutive to the term in case No. CRF07449, then also suspended execution of this sentence through April 21, 2011, and placed defendant on probation.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 23, 2009.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
HULL, Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] On December 27, 2008, defendant drove a motor vehicle while his license was suspended for driving under the influence. Defendants sentence in this case is not appealed from here.
