People v. Anthony

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAY AERON ANTHONY, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Dec 17, 2015

2d Crim. No. B264247 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B264247

12-17-2015

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAY AERON ANTHONY, Defendant and Appellant.

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

PERREN

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 2015011943)
(Ventura County)

Ray Aeron Anthony appeals from a judgment of conviction of misdemeanor vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1) Appellant damaged the windshield of the victim's car. The prosecution filed a complaint charging appellant with felony vandalism and alleged a prior felony strike conviction. (Id., subd. (b)(1); §§ 667 & 1170.12.) Appellant expressly waived his constitutional rights and the trial court accepted his nolo contendere plea to misdemeanor vandalism. The court granted appellant probation subject to multiple terms and conditions, including the payment of restitution, fees, a fine, and serving 33 days in county jail with 33 days credit for time served.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After examining the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

We advised appellant in writing that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished to raise on appeal. He did not respond.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

Ryan J. Wright, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.