P. v. Thomas
Filed 1/21/10 P. v. Thomas CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEPHREN MARCUS THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant. | B217505 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA055996) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph Brandolino, Judge. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Suzan E. Hier and Richard Lennon, Staff Attorneys, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________________
Defendant and appellant Kephren Marcus Thomas entered a plea of no contest to a charge of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)) and admitted suffering a prior conviction under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (b)-(i)). The plea and admission were entered pursuant to a case settlement calling for a 32-month sentence, consisting of the low term for grand theft doubled based upon the prior three strikes conviction. The agreement called for the sentence to run concurrent with another of defendants cases. After the matter was called for sentencing, the prosecutor realized defendant could not receive a concurrent sentence as a result of the admission of the prior conviction under the three strikes law. At the prosecutors request, the prior conviction was stricken, and defendant was sentenced to the midterm of two years in state prison. Defendant consented to the imposition of the lesser sentence.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied the certificate of probable cause. This court issued an order to show cause asking why the appeal should not be dismissed. After briefing, the order to show cause was discharged.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 on November 25, 2009. Counsel raised no appellate issues, but asked this court to independently review the record to determine the existence of arguable contentions. Defendant was advised by letter, dated December 2, 2009, of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant filed a letter with this court six days after expiration of the 30day period. On the courts own motion, permission is granted to file a late letter brief.
Although defendant filed a letter with this court, he makes no appellate contentions. Defendants requests for appointment of new counsel on appeal and for additional transcripts are denied on the ground no good cause has been demonstrated.
We have completed our review of the record and find no arguable appellate issues. It appears from the preliminary hearing transcript that defendant stole a computer from a girlfriends apartment. His no contest plea and admission were properly entered, and the sentence imposed was less than that contemplated by the plea agreement.
The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
