P. v. Medley
Filed 9/16/08 P. v. Medley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. THEODORE BEECH MEDLEY, Defendant and Appellant. | E045521 (Super.Ct.No. RIF081591) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christian F. Thierbach, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Statement of the Case
On February 19, 2008, defendant was returned from federal court to Riverside County Superior Court for further sentencing proceedings. Defendant requested that the court continue the matter for two weeks so he could have family visit with him. This request was denied. The district attorney announced it would not be seeking a new trial on the Penal Code section 12022053, subdivision (c)[1]enhancement and the previous sentence was ordered vacated. The enhancement was stricken from defendants sentence pursuant to section 1385 and the trial court ordered that the previously imposed sentence of 25 years to life remain in full force and effect.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 28, 2008.
Statement of facts
This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the conviction and is authorized by section 1237.
Defendant 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
