Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Pate

P. v. Pate

Filed 10/26/10 P. v.
Pate CA3

NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED

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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

>

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY ALLEN PATE,

Defendant and Appellant.

C063682

(Super.
Ct. No. 03F02459)

Following a jury
trial, defendant Jeffrey Allen Pate was convicted of possession of cocaine for sale and receiving stolen property. It was also found true that defendant was
personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the drug offense. In bifurcated
proceedings, the jury found defendant had two prior strike
convictions. Defendant was sentenced to
a term of 29 years to life and appealed the conviction to this court,
contending the evidence was insufficient to support the personally armed
allegation, and the court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury regarding
the personally armed allegation, failed to give a unanimity instruction
regarding the stolen property charge and abused its discretion in denying his >Romero >[1]
motion. We affirmed the convictions on December 4, 2007.

On November 3, 2009, defendant
sought modification of his sentence in the trial court, requesting the court
lower the restitution fund fine from $10,000 to $200. The court denied the motion. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion.[2]

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. ( >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised by counsel
of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing
of the opening brief. More than 30 days
elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the
entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SIMS , Acting P. J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , J.

RAYE , J.

Publication courtesy of San
Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information
provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

id=ftn1>

[1] People
v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
13 Cal.4th 497.

id=ftn2>

[2] The recent amendments to Penal Code section
4019 do not operate to modify defendant's entitlement to credit, as he had
prior convictions for a serious or violent felony. (Pen. Code, § 4019, subds. (b) & (c); Stats. 2009, 3d Ex.
Sess., ch. 28, § 50.)

Description	Following a jury trial, defendant Jeffrey Allen Pate was convicted of possession of cocaine for sale and receiving stolen property. It was also found true that defendant was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the drug offense. In bifurcated proceedings, the jury found defendant had two prior strike convictions. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 29 years to life and appealed the conviction to this court, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the personally armed allegation, and the court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury regarding the personally armed allegation, failed to give a unanimity instruction regarding the stolen property charge and abused its discretion in denying his Romero[1] motion. We affirmed the convictions on December 4, 2007. On November 3, 2009, defendant sought modification of his sentence in the trial court, requesting the court lower the restitution fund fine from $10,000 to $200. The court denied the motion. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion.[2] We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.