Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Summerfield

P. v. Summerfield

Filed 5/18/07 P. v. Summerfield 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

RUDOLPH SUMMERFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

C052737

(Super. Ct. No. 06F01089)

Early one morning in February 2006, a police officer observed defendant Rudolph Summerfield walking down the street with a thick-shafted cane. As the officer drove by him, defendant hid behind a trash dumpster. When the officer approached, defendant moved the cane to his shoulder. The officer told him to put the cane on the ground. Inspection of the cane showed a 27-inch sword.

Defendant pled no contest to possession of a cane sword. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the conditions, among others, that he serve 120 days of incarceration and pay a $200 restitution fine, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked, a $20 security surcharge, and a $540 public defender fee. On May 3, 2006, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.^{^[1]}

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.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

HULL, Acting P.J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

^{^[1]} After the notice of appeal was filed, defendant was arrested on a new charge. As part of a plea agreement, the new charges were dismissed and defendant admitted a probation violation in this case. Probation was revoked and defendant was sentenced to state prison for 16 months with 28 days of custody credit and 14 days of conduct credit. No notice of appeal was filed with respect to the probation revocation and prison sentence.

Description	Early one morning in February 2006, a police officer observed defendant Rudolph Summerfield walking down the street with a thick-shafted cane. As the officer drove by him, defendant hid behind a trash dumpster. When the officer approached, defendant moved the cane to his shoulder. The officer told him to put the cane on the ground. Inspection of the cane showed a 27-inch sword. Court 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 Court received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.