P. v. Bishop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/28/13  P. v. Bishop CA2/6

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 

SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT

 

DIVISION SIX

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,       Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   CHRIS PAUL BISHOP,       Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B244302 (Super. Ct. No. 2009044211) (Ventura County)

 

                        Chris Paul Bishop
appeals from a judgment entered after sentencing on a violation of probation.  

                        Bishop was convicted of href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">petty theft upon his guilty plea in
August 2010.  (Pen. Code, § 666.)  The trial court sentenced him to three years
in state prison, but suspended execution of the sentence and granted
probation.  Bishop violated the terms and
conditions of his probation.  He admitted
that he committed a new theft in August 2010, he did not maintain regular
employment, he did not pay fines and fees as ordered, and he used a controlled
substance.  In exchange for his
admission, the court granted a motion to dismiss the new felony theft
charge.  The court revoked probation and
ordered Bishop to return to court for sentencing in October 2011.  Bishop did not appear.  He appeared for sentencing in August 2012
after his arrest on a new theft charge. 
The court ordered execution of the sentence. 

                        We appointed href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">counsel to represent Bishop in this
appeal.  After counsel's examination of
the record, he filed an opening brief
raising no issues.

                        On January 14, 2013, we advised Bishop that he had
30 days within which to personally submit any href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">contentions or issues that he wished to raise
on appeal.  We have not received a
response.

                        We have reviewed the
entire record and are satisfied that Bishop’s attorney has fully complied with
his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

                        The order is affirmed.

                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 

 

 

 

                                                                        GILBERT,
P.J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

                        YEGAN, J.

 

 

 

                        PERREN, J.

 



Patricia
Murphy, Judge

 

Superior
Court County
of Ventura

 

______________________________

 

 

                        Richard B. Lennon, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.