P. v. Little
Filed 10/23/08 P. v. Little CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN CEDRIC LITTLE, Defendant and Appellant. | E045604 (Super.Ct.No. RIF138053) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Janice M. McIntyre, Judge (retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Kevin Little pled guilty to misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a), count 1)[1]and false imprisonment ( 236, count 2). The trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in state prison with 178 actual days in custody and 88 days of conduct credit. Approximately two months later, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of the appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendants plea agreement stated that he agreed he did the things set forth in the charges that he was admitting. The court found a factual basis for the plea. According to the complaint, on or about August 1, 2007, defendant inflicted a corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon Jane Doe, who was a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, or parent of defendants child.
DISCUSSION
Dependant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent 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 setting forth a statement of the case and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Counsel did not identify any potential arguable issues.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ Gaut
J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
