P. v. Taylor
Filed 6/30/08 P. v. Taylor CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEMETRIE LLOYD TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. | B199714 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA078296) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Abraham A. Khan, Judge. Affirmed.
Rita L. Swenor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Defendant Demetrie Lloyd Taylor was charged by felony complaint with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and forgery (id., 476). The complaint alleged that defendant suffered three prior convictions of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the three strikes law (id., 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and served a prior prison term (id., 667.5, subd. (b)).
Before the preliminary hearing, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to second degree burglary and admitted one strike conviction. The remaining charge and allegations were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of four years, consisting of the two-year midterm sentence doubled as a second strike.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal and sought a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied his request on the ground defendant received the agreed-upon sentence pursuant to his plea agreement.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that we review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 10, 2008, we notified defendant that he had 30 days in which to raise any issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have examined the record independently and conclude counsel has performed her duty. There are no issues of arguable merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NEIDORF, J.*
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
