P. v. Sanchez

Filed 1/8/08 P. v. Sanchez CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohi

bits 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(San Joaquin)

----

Pursuant to a negotiated settlement, defendant Ronald Sanchez pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and forgery, and admitted a prior strike conviction in exchange for the dismissal of other counts and a stipulated sentence of six years. It was also agreed upon that defendant would be released on his own recognizance and if, as directed, he appeared for sentencing on June 6, 2005, and had not pick[ed] up a new case, he would receive a sentence of 32 months.

Defendant failed to appear on June 6, 2005, and was arrested on September 1, 2006. On September 25, the court imposed the six-year term.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

During a parole search, defendant was found in possession of .20 grams of methamphetamine and a counterfeit $50 bill.

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 and he has done so.

In his supplemental brief, defendant requests that his case [be] reversed because he was given more than the 32 months for which he had bargained, his attorney wasnt much help, and the court should have granted his request to have his attorney fire[d] since they were cussing at each other.

The record clearly shows that defendant bargained for a sentence of six years, that he would be released from custody pending sentencing on June 6, 2005, and if he returned for sentencing as directed, his sentence would be reduced to 32 months. When, without legal excuse, defendant failed to appear for sentencing on June 6, he was no longer entitled to the 32-month reduction.

As to defendants claim that the court erred in denying his request to fire his attorney because the two were cussing at each other, nothing in the record supports this assertion. The most that defendant states to the court is that his attorneys not even helping him, an assertion totally belied by the record.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORRISON , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P.J.

ROBIE , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.