Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Morrow

P. v. Morrow

Filed 10/15/08 P. v. Morrow CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CORY LAMAR MORROW,

Defendant and Appellant.

E045376

(Super.Ct.No. FVA026558)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Raymond L. Haight III, Judge. Affirmed.

Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)^{^[1]}during one of which he used a firearm ( 21022.53, subd. (b)). As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 16 years in prison. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.

He appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396; 18 L.Ed. 2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

After concluding our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.

Facts

On February 27, 2006, defendant and a cohort robbed a restaurant by holding an employee at gunpoint.

Discussion

Defendants waiver of his right to appeal, where, as here, he agreed to the sentence imposed, and the denial of his request for a certificate of probable cause forecloses our consideration of most of the potential issues identified by his appellate counsel. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76-86) As to the remaining potential issues, the record before this court does not indicate that defendants presentence custody credits were improperly calculated or that the trial court erred in failing to issue a certificate of probable cause.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P.J.

We concur:

RICHLI

MILLER

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^{^[1]} All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

Description	Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1]during one of which he used a firearm ( 21022.53, subd. (b)). As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 16 years in prison. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court. He appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396; 18 L.Ed. 2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. After concluding our independent review of the record, Court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.