From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Riddle

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
May 3, 2011
No. C065906 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2011)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK NEWTON RIDDLE, Defendant and Appellant. C065906 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento May 3, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 10F03369

MURRAY, J.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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.

On May 14, 2010, defendant Mark Newton Riddle was found in possession of heroin and methadone. He pled no contest to unlawful possession of heroin and methadone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), alcohol- or drug-related reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103.5), and driving while his license was suspended for driving under the influence and with a prior conviction for same (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). In exchange for his plea, an additional count for being under the influence of heroin and methadone and a special allegation of a prior conviction for driving under the influence were dismissed. It was also agreed that he would not be sentenced to state prison at the outset.

The trial court ordered defendant to participate in drug court and placed him on informal probation for three years. Defendant was also ordered to serve 32 days in county jail, with credit for two days served, and to pay various fines and fees, including a $100 restitution fine.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., HULL, J.


Summaries of

People v. Riddle

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
May 3, 2011
No. C065906 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Riddle

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK NEWTON RIDDLE, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: May 3, 2011

Citations

No. C065906 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2011)