P. v. Jarquin
Filed 11/6/09 P. v. Jarquin CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIK LEVI JARQUIN, Defendant and Appellant. | F056859 (Super. Ct. No. 08CM7529) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James T. Laporte, Judge.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Erik Levi Jarquin was an inmate at Corcoran State Prison. On August 12, 2008, a correctional officer conducting random patsearches stopped Jarquin and searched him. The officer felt a lump on one of Jarquin socks and retrieved a razor with a plastic handle and an inmate kite.
On October 1, 2008, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Jarquin with possession of a sharp instrument by a prison inmate (Pen. Code, 4502, subd. (a), count 1) and manufacturing a sharp instrument while a prison inmate (Pen. Code, 4502, subd. (b), count 2). The complaint also alleged that Jarquin had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
On November 6, 2008, Jarquin pled no contest to count 2 and admitted the three strikes law allegations in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining count and a stipulated 32-month term, the mitigated term of 16 months doubled to 32 months because of Jarquins prior strike conviction. After Jarquin waived time for sentencing and a probation report, the court imposed the stipulated sentence.
Jarquins appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Jarquin has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J. and Hill, J.
