P. v. Stanford
Filed 6/17/08 P. v. Stanford CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY GLEN STANFORD, Defendant and Appellant. | A119499 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-060608-7) |
Counsel for appellant Henry Glen Stanford has filed a brief raising no specific issues and asking for our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel sent notice to appellant of his right to file a brief in his own behalf. No such brief was filed. Having conducted such a review, we conclude no arguable issues exist on appeal and affirm.
FACTS
Appellant was charged by information with five felony and two misdemeanor counts arising from a violent assault, burglary, and kidnapping. The victim was his estranged wife, and appellant was alleged to have used scissors in the course of the event.
On January 31, 2007, appellant pled no contest to the entirety of the information. The trial judge explained that the full range of sentencing possibilitiesfrom probation through twelve years and eight months in prisonwould be available at the time of sentencing. Specifically, the judge indicated there was no guarantee of a grant of probation or that, if sentenced to prison, appellant would receive the mitigated sentence of three years, which represented the last plea bargain offer from the District Attorneys Office. The judge advised appellant that, because the allegations involved the use of a deadly weapon, appellant was presumptively ineligible for probation absent unusual circumstances.
Thereafter, the parties filed sentencing memoranda, and the probation department prepared a sentencing report. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, conducted over four days, the court adopted the probation officers recommendation and referred appellant to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03. That study recommended that appellant be denied probation and committed to prison. The court adopted that recommendation and imposed the mitigated term of three years in prison for kidnapping. The mitigated-term sentences on the remaining felony counts and the misdemeanor sentences were run concurrently or were stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and the weapon-use enhancements were stricken.
Appellant was vigorously represented by competent counsel. The trial court indulged in a lengthy and thorough examination of the sentencing issues. Appellants sentence was well within the bounds of his plea agreement.
We find no arguable issues on appeal and affirm.
_________________________
REARDON, J. *
We concur:
_________________________
JONES, P. J.
_________________________
SIMONS, J.
* Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
