P. v. Williams
Filed 8/18/09 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, v. ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | C061187 (Super. Ct. No. 08F06669) |
On August 12, 2008, Sacramento police officers saw defendant Robert Lee Williams in a neighborhood known for drug activity. Defendant was stopped and the officers asked to see his identification. After checking their records, the officers learned that defendant was a Penal Code section 290 registrant who had failed to register within five business days of his birthday, in violation of Penal Code section 290.012. Accordingly, defendant was arrested and charged with violating his registration requirements. (Pen. Code, 290.018, subd. (b).) It was further alleged that defendant had two prior strike convictions under Penal Code sections 667.5, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12.
After waiving a preliminary hearing, defendant entered into a negotiated plea of no contest to violating his registration requirements. Defendant also admitted to a single prior strike conviction. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to dismiss all remaining charges and allegations, and vacate his probation in an unrelated matter. As part of his plea agreement, defendant stipulated to the low term of 16 months in state prison, doubled for the prior strike conviction. Defendant was later sentenced in accordance with the stipulated term and awarded 258 days of presentence credit.
Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
SIMS , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
