gno.law

People v. Moreno CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · B263263 · 2015-08-17 · Unpublished

Area
criminal
Panel
Kenneth R. Yegan (author), Arthur Gilbert

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 8/17/15 P. v. Moreno CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B263263 (Super. Ct. No. 14C-34577) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v. FRANCISCO GARCIA MORENO, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Francisco Garcia Moreno, Jr. appeals his conviction by plea to grand theft- 1 auto (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1)) , entered pursuant to a negotiated plea in which appellant was sentenced to three years state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay, among other things, victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $900 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. On June 5, 2015, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant. The probation report reflects that appellant was a passenger in a stolen vehicle and tried to flee during a traffic stop. Appellant admitted using heroin while in the vehicle. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125- 126.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

PERREN, J

2 Jacquelyn A. Duffy, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________ California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard Lennon, for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Cites, in this corpus