legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Ratliff

P. v. Ratliff
03:22:2013






P




>P. v.
Ratliff



























Filed 3/8/13 P. v. Ratliff CA5





















NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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


FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT




>






THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and
Respondent,



v.



ALBERT
ELDRIDGE RATLIFF,



Defendant and
Appellant.








F064236



(Super.
Ct. Nos. F10601292, F11905761)



>OPINION




>THE COURThref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">*

APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Fresno
County. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge.

James
F. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Office
of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

>

>-ooOoo-

On September 3, 2010, in Fresno County Superior Court
case No. F10601292 (first case), appellant, Albert Eldridge Ratliff, pled
guilty to a single count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse
or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)).
On November 9, 2010, the court suspended imposition of sentence and
placed appellant on three years’ formal probation.

On November
1, 2011, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F11905761 (second case),
appellant pled guilty to a single count of transportation of marijuana (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), and based on that plea, the court found
appellant to be in violation of probation in the first case. On December 2, 2011, the court imposed the two-year
lower term in the second case and a concurrent two-year term in the first
case.

On January
3, 2012, appellant filed a notice of
appeal
covering both cases and requested the court issue a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause (Pen.
Code, § 1237.5). The court denied that
request.

Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks that this court independently
review
the record. (>People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Appellant has not responded to
this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.

FACTS

First Casehref="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1]

On August 21, 2010, the person
identified in the report of the probation officer in the first case as the
“Confidential Victim” (CV) told Fresno County Sheriff’s Department (FCSD)
deputies the following: She and appellant
had been living together for approximately seven years. That day, appellant was engaging in what she
deemed rough “horseplay” with her 20-year-old son and another young man. The CV objected, and appellant responded with
an expletive and “grabbed [the CV] by both of his hands in the upper body and
threw her on the ground.” The CV got up,
the two exchanged words, and appellant “pushed her down to the
ground .…” Thereafter, appellant
followed the CV into the residence where the two continued to argue, and
appellant “grabbed [the CV] again and pushed her up against the kitchen
wall.” He “threw her down two or three
more times.” At some point thereafter,
appellant left the residence.

The CV
“reported both of her wrists hurt extensively and she had a laceration on her
face.”

Second Case

According
to a FCSD report, the following occurred on October 4, 2011: A FCSD deputy, upon effecting a traffic stop
of a vehicle with an expired registration, noticed an “‘overwhelming odor’ of
marijuana from the vehicle’s interior.”
He asked the driver, Jack Borders, if there was marijuana in the
car. Appellant, a passenger in the car,
stated that Borders “had a medical marijuana card and that it was ‘all
legal.’” Borders stated he did not have
his card. Appellant told the deputy
there was approximately one pound of marijuana in the car, the marijuana
belonged to him (appellant), and he “did not have enough money to renew his
medical marijuana card.”

The deputy
searched the car pursuant to Borders’s consent and found 382.6 grams of marijuana.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell,
J., and Poochigian, J.

id=ftn2>

href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] Information
in this section is taken from the report of the probation officer in the first
case.








Description On September 3, 2010, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F10601292 (first case), appellant, Albert Eldridge Ratliff, pled guilty to a single count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). On November 9, 2010, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years’ formal probation.
On November 1, 2011, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F11905761 (second case), appellant pled guilty to a single count of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), and based on that plea, the court found appellant to be in violation of probation in the first case. On December 2, 2011, the court imposed the two-year lower term in the second case and a concurrent two-year term in the first case.
On January 3, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal covering both cases and requested the court issue a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). The court denied that request.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale