P. v. Brown
Filed 8/3/07 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LAWRENCE BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. | C053773 (Super. Ct. No. 05F02743) |
After correctional officers noticed that defendant Lawrence Brown, an inmate at Folsom State Prison, was not in his assigned bed at 2:35 a.m. on August 10, 2004, they discovered a freshly dug hole under a section of the perimeter fence. Later, defendant was found in his bed, with dried dirt and grass on his face. His pants and jacket were covered with dirt and grass stains.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to escape and admitted having a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. He was sentenced to a stipulated term of 32 months in prison and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $20 court security fee, and a $200 restitution fine stayed unless parole is revoked. Defendant appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant 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.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief, asserting two claims: the sentence he was serving at the time of his escape was improper; and his sentence should be cut in half because he was guilty of attempted escape, rather than escape.
Because defendants first claim concerns the sentence that he received for a 2000 conviction in San Diego County, it is untimely and not cognizable in this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104; 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Appeal, 146, p. 393; Pen. Code, 1235, subd. (b).)
Defendants second contention, that he was guilty only of attempted escape, also is barred by his no contest plea to escape (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896) and his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.) In any event, a prisoner who commits an escape or attempts an escape from state prison, without force or violence, violates Penal Code section 4530, subdivision (b), which imposes the same punishment for escape and attempted escape.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND, P.J.
We concur:
MORRISON , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
