P. v. Minton
Filed 10/18/10 P. v.
Minton CA3
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICKY WRIGHT MINTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
C064257
(Super.
Ct. No. 09F07415)
This case comes
to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by
We provide the
following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the
case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Between August 1, 2009, and October 1, 2009, defendant Ricky
Wright Minton, a registered sex offender,
failed to register in Sacramento County
as required by Penal Code section 290, subdivision (b).[1] On February
20, 2008, defendant had been convicted in Solano
County of failing to register.
Defendant
entered a negotiated plea of no contest to felony failure to register
(§ 290.018, subd. (b)) in exchange for a grant of probation for a term of
five years, subject to certain terms and conditions including 210 days in
county jail with 70 days of credit for time served.[2] The court sentenced defendant
accordingly.
Defendant
appeals. The trial court denied
defendant's request for a certificate of
probable cause (§ 1237.5).
We appointed
counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and
requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the
date of filing of the opening brief.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication
from defendant. Having undertaken an
examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P.
J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California
pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information
provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
[2] It appears defendant would have completed his
jail term in early 2010. The recent
amendments to section 4019 did not operate to modify defendant's entitlement to
credit, as he was required to register as a sex offender. (§ 4019, subds. (b), (c); Stats. 2009,
3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.)
