P. v. Swensen
Filed 6/21/12 P. v. Swensen CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
HOWARD
JAY SWENSEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B235092
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA069468)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, James R. Dabney, Judge. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director,
and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Defendant Howard Jay Swensen purports
to appeal from the judgment following his no contest plea to one count of
of force likely to produce great bodily
§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court
placed him on unsupervised probation.
According to the transcript of the preliminary hearing, the victim of
the assault, Kevin Arias, was on a ladder at the AMC theater at the Third
Street Promenade in Santa Monica when defendant shook the ladder,
causing him to fall. Defendant then got
on top of Arias and attacked him using chopsticks and his fists.
Defendant’s court appointed attorney
filed an opening brief pursuant to
requesting that we independently review the record. By letter dated January 9,
2012, we
informed defendant of his right to submit by brief or letter within 30 days any
contentions he wished us to consider. We
have received no response.
Defendant’s failure to obtain a
from raising any issues challenging the validity of his plea (Pen. Code,
§ 1237.5; see People v. McEwan (2007)
147 Cal.App.4th 173, 177-178), and our independent review discloses no
cognizable issues from proceedings arising after the plea.
We have examined the entire record and
are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue
of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure
and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review
of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE,
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
