P. v. Palkovic
Filed 8/5/10 P. v. Palkovic CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
JOHN PALKOVIC,
Defendant and Appellant.
D056613
(Super. Ct.
No. SCE286678)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of San Diego
County, Charles W. Ervin, Judge. Affirmed.
John
Palkovic entered a negotiated guilty plea to felony vandalism (Pen. Code,
§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and admitted he had a prior serious/violent
felony or strike conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667,
subdivisions (b) through (i). As part of
the plea bargain, the prosecution
agreed to dismiss the following counts; first degree burglary; battery of a
significant other; battery; and resisting an officer. Also dismissed was an allegation Palkovic
served a prior prison term.
The trial
court sentenced Palkovic to six years in prison by imposing the upper term of
three years on the vandalism count and doubling it under the Three Strikes law.
Palkovic did
not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
On December 21, 2008, Palkovic and his
girlfriend argued after drinking. The
girlfriend's roommate asked Palkovic to leave.
Palkovic refused, grabbed his girlfriend by the throat and started to
choke her. The roommate opened the front
door and told Palkovic to leave.
Palkovic pushed and hit the roommate, who fell. Palkovic then left the apartment.
Palkovic
returned to the apartment and began banging on the door. The girlfriend and the roommate did not open
the door. Palkovic grabbed a metal dolly
from the porch and used it to break a sliding glass door. After Palkovic entered the apartment, he
started breaking items until the police arrived. At police headquarters, Palkovic became
combative.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior
court. Counsel presents no argument for
reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by
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 Palkovic's guilty
plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether Palkovic was properly advised of
the consequences of pleading guilty and waived his rights; and (3) whether the
sentence complied with the plea bargain.
We granted
Palkovic permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of
the entire record pursuant to People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436,
including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra,
386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Palkovic on
this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN,
J.
O'ROURKE,
J.
Publication Courtesy of California
attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
San Diego Case
Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
