From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dickenson

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Sep 15, 2009
No. D054788 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLEN BURT DICKENSON, Defendant and Appellant. D054788 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division September 15, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Szumowski, Judge. Super. Ct. No. SCD188869

McCONNELL, P. J.

In 2005 Allen Burt Dickenson entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The plea bargain called for a low term lid of 16 months. The trial court suspended sentence and granted Dickenson probation for three years, conditioned on, among other things, he serve 365 days in jail.

In 2007 Dickenson's probation was revoked for failure to pay fines and failure to report to his probation officer. Dickenson admitted violating probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The court formally revoked Dickenson's probation and then reinstated probation under the same terms and conditions until February 8, 2010. The court committed Dickenson to jail for 270 days and gave him credit for serving 216 actual days. Dickenson waived past, present and future Penal Code section 4019 credits.

FACTS

Dickenson, a convicted felon, admitted he unlawfully possessed a Ruger.45 caliber pistol.

Dickenson admitted he violated his probation by failing to notify the probation department of his whereabouts.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue: whether Dickenson's guilty plea was constitutionally valid.

We granted Dickenson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Dickenson has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, J., McINTYRE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Dickenson

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Sep 15, 2009
No. D054788 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Dickenson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLEN BURT DICKENSON, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Sep 15, 2009

Citations

No. D054788 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2009)