P. v. Littek CA3
abundy's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 06:01:2017 - 11:31:27
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
In re K.P. CA6
P. v. Price CA6
P. v. Alvarez CA6
P. v. Shaw CA6
Marriage of Lejerskar CA4/3
Find all listings submitted by abundy
By nbuttres
02:06:2018
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Nevada)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PATRICK JAMES LITTEK,
Defendant and Appellant.
C084948
(Super. Ct. No. TF16000332B)
In exchange for a stipulated sentence, defendant pled no contest to attempting to manufacture concentrated marijuana. As specified in his plea form, “defendant attempted to manufacture [butane honey oil] by possessing the parts required for a lab.”
Defendant said on his plea form that his plea was pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. He also admitted to violating probation.
Carrying out the terms of the plea, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on four years’ formal probation. It ordered him to serve 180 days in jail and awarded five days of credit (3 actual; 2 conduct). The court also imposed various fines and fees. As to the probation violation, the court reinstated probation on the terms previously imposed.
Defendant timely appealed. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
Robie, J.
We concur:
/s/
Raye, P. J.
/s/
Murray, J.
| Description | In exchange for a stipulated sentence, defendant pled no contest to attempting to manufacture concentrated marijuana. As specified in his plea form, “defendant attempted to manufacture [butane honey oil] by possessing the parts required for a lab.” Defendant said on his plea form that his plea was pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. He also admitted to violating probation. Carrying out the terms of the plea, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on four years’ formal probation. It ordered him to serve 180 days in jail and awarded five days of credit (3 actual; 2 conduct). The court also imposed various fines and fees. As to the probation violation, the court reinstated probation on the terms previously imposed. Defendant timely appealed. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. |
| Rating | |
| Views | 14 views. Averaging 14 views per day. |
