P. v. James

Filed 8/27/08 P. v. James CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Hamlin, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

In a criminal complaint filed October 30, 2007, appellant Susan Lee James was charged with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code,  11377, subd. (a)), a felony, and possession of an instrument used for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,  11364), a misdemeanor. On November 28, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to the felony; she waived her right to the preparation of a presentence report; and the court, in accordance with the plea agreement, imposed the 16-month lower term and ordered that term be served concurrently with a term imposed for violation of parole. On January 29, 2008, the court denied appellants request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,  1237.5).

Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.

At the time of appellants plea, the parties stipulated that the [police] reports exchanged contain a factual basis for the plea. However, the police reports are not part of the record. The only indication in the record as to the facts of the instant offense is the charge in the criminal complaint that appellant committed that offense on or about October 26, 2007.

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Gomes, J.