P. v. Scott
Filed 7/3/06 P. v. Scott CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS EDWARD SCOTT, Defendant and Appellant. | E039417 (Super.Ct.No. SWF010600) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. James T. Warren, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 21, 2005, defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))[1] (counts 1 and 2).[2] He also admitted that he had sustained a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior felony strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). In return, the remaining allegation was to be dismissed, and defendant was promised a stipulated prison term of 15 years in state prison to be imposed concurrently with a sentence defendant was already serving in another case out of Orange County.
Thereafter, on October 25, 2005, in accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was sentenced to state prison for 15 years, and the remaining count was dismissed.[3] The court also imposed a $1,500 restitution fine and a $1,500 parole revocation fine, staying the latter pending successful completion of probation. Defendant requested, but the trial court denied, presentence custody credits, as he was already sentenced and in custody on his Orange County case.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
Acting P.J.
We concur:
GAUT
J.
KING
J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Real Estate Lawyers.
[1] All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
[2] On that same day, defendant also pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)) as alleged in case No. SWF010946.
[3] On that same day, defendant was also sentenced in case No. SWF010946 to the midterm of two years concurrent with the Orange County case and concurrent with case No. SWF010600.
