P. v. Granda
Filed 11/30/07 P. v. Granda CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN JAY GRANDA, Defendant and Appellant. | H031335 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC638219) |
Defendant John Jay Granda appeals from judgment entered after he pled no contest to felony burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) in exchange for a maximum sentence of nine years and dismissal of an additional charge of possession of a stolen bicycle. Defendant also admitted one of two alleged strike priors and one serious felony prior. (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (a), 1170.12.) In response to a Romero motion (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497), opposed by the People, the trial court dismissed the remaining strike and sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison. This appeal ensued.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) There was no reply.
DISCUSSION
At 9:00 a.m. on August 4, 2006, Santa Clara Patrol Officer Thomas Leipelt observed defendant riding a bicycle with a trailer attached into a residential carport area where Leipelt knew thefts had occurred. Defendant came over to Leipelt and got off the bike. In response to questions, defendant said he did not live there but had permission to store his belongings in a locker. Defendant also said he was on probation. Leipelt promptly confirmed defendants probationary status and conducted a probation search. Defendant then admitted the small baggie containing methamphetamine and a bag of womens rings and watches in a backpack in the bike trailer were his. After defendant was arrested for possession of methamphetamine, Leipelt checked the license sticker on the bicycle and learned it had been stolen from the open garage attached to the residence of Robert Nydegger on the previous Tuesday. Nydegger identified the bike as his.
Defendant was Mirandized[1]and initially stated that he traded the bike for one of his own a couple of weeks earlier, but later admitted that he saw the bike in the open garage and took it.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
