P. v. Purcell







Filed 12/18/08 P. v. Purcell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, v. BOBBY J. PURCELL, Defendant and Appellant.

E045889 (Super.Ct.No. FNE800029) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Joseph R. Brisco, Judge. Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On May 6, 2008, pursuant to Penal Code section 859a,^[1] defendant pled nolo contendere to a violation of section 288, subdivision (a), as charged in count one of the felony complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for three (3) years less custody credits and the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney. (§ 1385.)
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging matters not affecting the validity of the plea.
statement of facts
The factual basis stated that: “ . . . on or about March 26, 2008, defendant did willfully and unlawfully lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act upon the body of certain parts of the victim, . . . a child under the age of 14, with the intent of arousing feelings and do[ing] psychological damage of either the defendant or the child.”
Defendant 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 the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.


We concur:

HOLLENHORST
J.

GAUT
J.



Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---