P. v. Garcia
Filed 1/9/08 P. v. Garcia CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL RAMOS GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. | B197638 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA051751) |
THE COURT:*
Daniel Ramos Garcia (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a contested probation violation hearing. On September 16, 2005, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2).[1] He also admitted inflicting great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). According to the negotiated disposition, appellant was sentenced to time served and placed on five years formal probation. Also in conformance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years in state prison, suspended. The sentence consisted of the midterm of three years for the assault and three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. Appellants probation was revoked in July 2006 and reinstated in August 2006. His probation was again revoked and reinstated in November 2006.
Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged with new crimes in case No. (LB) 6LG10396-01. On March 7, 2007, at a contested probation violation hearing, the prosecutor presented documentary evidence that a jury had found appellant guilty of three misdemeanors on February 23, 2007. The trial court found appellant in violation of probation and imposed the previously suspended sentence of six years in state prison. The court awarded credits pursuant to section 2933.1, which allows for 15 percent only of presentence worktime credits and 15 percent of prison worktime credits for a person who is convicted of a felony offense listed in section 667.5, subdivision (c). ( 2933.1, 667.5, subd. (c)(8); see People v. Daniels (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 736, 740.)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief containing an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues.
On August 8, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
