P. v. Montoy
Filed 2/27/09 P. v. Montoy CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTHA ALICIA MONTOY, Defendant and Appellant. | D053010 (Super. Ct. No. SCD208549) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G. Woods, Judge. Affirmed.
Martha Alicia Montoy pleaded guilty to five counts of burglary (Pen. Code, 459),[1] four counts of grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)) and one count of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)) under People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. Montoy also admitted that she had three prior probation denial convictions ( 1203, subd. (e)(4)). In return, Montoy was given an indicated sentence of three years. Montoy was sentenced in accordance with the indicated sentence.
The trial court granted Montoy's request for a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
Between March 7, 2007 and August 6, 2007, Montoy committed five commercial burglaries of offices in Mission Valley. Posing as a member of the cleaning crew, Montoy entered the offices between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The next morning employees would find computers and other office supplies missing. In one of the burglaries, a surveillance camera photographed Montoy leaving the building.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court erred by denying Montoy's Marsden (People v. Marsden (1970) 3 Cal.3d 118) motions; (2) whether the court erred by denying Montoy's motion to withdraw her guilty pleas; (3) whether the court erred by denying probation; and (4) whether the court erred by imposing the upper term of three years on the first burglary count.
We granted Montoy permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Montoy on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
