P. v. Roberson
Filed 2/3/10 P. v. Roberson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yuba)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS LEON ROBERSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C062781 (Super. Ct. No. CRF09345) |
Defendant Dennis Roberson pled no contest to petty theft with a prior conviction in 2005 for the same offense. His ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. Pursuant to the latter, we provide the following summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
The parties stipulated that the police report contained the factual basis for the plea. Defendant had put two bottles of Jack Daniels under his shirt and then left the store without paying for them. An employee detained him and recovered the merchandise.
Defendant pled before the preliminary examination. At the plea hearing, the trial court confirmed on the record that defendant understood the consequences of his plea and the rights he was waiving in the written form that he had executed (including the right to a preliminary examination). The trial court accepted the plea of no contest to the charge (with a waiver of any consideration for probation) in exchange for a sentence to the lower term. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea, also imposing the minimum restitution fine and suspended parole revocation fine, a court security fee of $30, and a court facilities assessment of $30. Because defendant was taken into custody after shoplifting the alcohol for an unrelated violation of parole, the court did not award any custody credits. Defendant filed a notice of appeal without requesting a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case, and asked us to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have not received any communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we do not find any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
HULL, Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
