From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shurick

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 10, 2009
No. D053375 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLEN ALLEN SHURICK, Defendant and Appellant. D053375 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division March 10, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD213176, Michael T. Smyth, Judge.

HUFFMAN, J.

Glen Allen Shurick entered a negotiated guilty plea to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and admitted he previously served three separate prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Under the plea bargain, the prosecution agreed to dismiss one count of attempted auto theft (§ 664; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one count of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of possessing burglary tools (§ 466). The prosecution also agreed to dismiss two prior prison term allegations. The parties stipulated to a five-year prison sentence. The trial court sentenced Shurick in accordance with the plea bargain.

Statutory references are to Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

FACTS

On April 19, 2008, Shurick entered a locked vehicle with the intent to steal it.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 the trial court unlawfully imposed more than one enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) for the same offense.

We granted Shurick 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 issue. Competent counsel has represented Shurick on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., McINTYRE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Shurick

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 10, 2009
No. D053375 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Shurick

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLEN ALLEN SHURICK, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 2009

Citations

No. D053375 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2009)