Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Williams

P. v. Williams

Filed 10/18/07 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CHARLES ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C055235

(Super. Ct. No. SF103174A)

On January 18, 2007, Porfiro Carranza left his car warming up in his driveway. When he returned to his driveway, the car was gone. Later that day, defendant Charles Anthony Williams was seen driving Carranzas car. He did not have permission to drive the car. Defendant was charged with taking or driving a vehicle without the owners consent (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 469d, subd. (a). As to both of these counts, it was further alleged defendant had previously been convicted of vehicle theft. (Pen. Code, 666.5.) Defendant was also charged with possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377.) It was further alleged that defendant had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and that he was on probation when the current offense was committed (Pen. Code, 969).

Defendant pleaded guilty to taking or driving a vehicle without the owners permission and admitted the prior conviction enhancement, with the understanding he would be sentenced to the low term of two years, to run concurrently with his parole violation. The remaining charges and enhancements were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to two years, in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendants request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court 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 undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

DAVIS , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P.J.

NICHOLSON , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

Description	On January 18, 2007, Porfiro Carranza left his car warming up in his driveway. When he returned to his driveway, the car was gone. Later that day, defendant Charles Anthony Williams was seen driving Carranzas car. He did not have permission to drive the car. Defendant was charged with taking or driving a vehicle without the owners consent (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 469d, subd. (a). As to both of these counts, it was further alleged defendant had previously been convicted of vehicle theft. (Pen. Code, 666.5.) Defendant was also charged with possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377.) It was further alleged that defendant had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and that he was on probation when the current offense was committed (Pen. Code, 969). Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.