P. v. Jimenez
Filed 2/13/09 P. v. Jimenez CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINO RUBALCAVA JIMENEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | A122687 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR197883) |
Lino Rubalcava Jimenez appeals from a judgment upon his plea of no contest to possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351). Defendant also admitted that he suffered a prior conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11378. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so.
On August 11, 2008, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and pled no contest to possessing cocaine for sale. The charge stemmed from an incident in which the police observed defendant throw a plastic bag containing 25 individual bags of cocaine underneath a van.
Defendant entered the plea with the understanding that he could be sentenced up to seven years eight months, but that the court indicated it would place him on probation on conditions including the completion of a residential treatment program.
On September 8, 2008, the court suspended imposition of a state prison sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years on conditions including that he serve 210 days in the county jail, and that he be committed to a category one or two residential treatment program. Over defendants objection, the court also imposed gang-related probation terms in light of defendants tattoos of 14 and four dots which are associated with the Norteo gang. The court granted defendant a total of 187 custody credits.
Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
________________________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
___________________________
REARDON, Acting P. J.
___________________________
SEPULVEDA, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
