gno.law

People v. Smith CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · E081778 · 2024-02-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF2300627
Trial judge
Gary Polk
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
criminal

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Filed 2/13/24 P. v. Smith CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E081778 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIF2300627) v. OPINION GARDINER BOSEY SMITH III, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gary Polk, Judge.

Affirmed.

Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2023, Gardiner Bosey Smith pled guilty to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Per a plea agreement, the 1 court sentenced him to three years formal probation and 140 days of custody, but awarded him credit for 140 days of time-served. Smith appealed, and in the notice of appeal indicated he was appealing “sentencing, falsifying information.” Smith did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

We appointed counsel to represent Smith on appeal, and 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, setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel’s brief did not raise any issues for our consideration. We offered Smith an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Smith.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

McKINSTER J.

Cites, in this corpus