P. v. Boatwright
Filed 1/11/08 P. v. Boatwright CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRYAN EDWARD BOATRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. | G038684 (Super. Ct. No. 07HF0284) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Peter J. Polos, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura L. Furness, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Bryan Edward Boatright was charged by felony complaint with one count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code 459, 460, subd. (a)) and one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code 496, subd. (a)). Defendant waived a preliminary hearing and pleaded guilty to both counts pursuant to a plea agreement. Defendant offered the following statement as the factual basis for his guilty plea: In Orange County, California, on 2/3/07, I unlawfully entered an inhabited dwelling with the intent to steal and I knowingly possessed personal property with knowledge that it was stolen.
The court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of two years, the low term for residential burglary. Sentence on the receiving count was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Defendant was given custody credit of 52 days of actual custody and 26 days of conduct credit for a total custody credit of 78 days. Defendant was also ordered to pay a restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 of $200 and a parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45 of $200, suspended unless parole is revoked. Finally, defendant was ordered to pay a security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 of $40.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. But there is no record of a suppression motion having been made or heard; there is nothing to review in that regard. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on appellants behalf. Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in appellants own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from appellant. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Although defendant did not purport to appeal the validity of the plea (and did not obtain a certificate of probable cause), we nevertheless examined the record in that regard. Defendants constitutional rights were meticulously explained to him, he knowingly, freely and voluntarily waived those rights, and the sentence imposed was both lawful and as agreed in defendants plea.
The judgment is affirmed.
IKOLA, J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
BEDSWORTH, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
