From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Atherton

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 8, 2011
No. E051441 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. SWF10000559 Kelly L. Hansen, Judge.

Michelle Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

RICHLI J.

Defendant and appellant Joseph Eric Atherton pled guilty to one count of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of probation and custody of 180 days in county jail. Defendant requested immediate sentencing and was placed on probation in accordance with the plea to the court with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2009, defendant entered a residence in the City of Hemet and stole money and personal property, specifically electronic items, exceeding $400 in value.

On April 14, 2010, a two-count felony complaint was filed, charging defendant with residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1) and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); count 2).

On June 28, 2010, pursuant to the court’s indicated sentence, defendant pled guilty as charged in exchange for placement on probation and custody in county jail. The court found that the guilty plea was entered into freely and voluntarily and that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. At defendant’s request, sentencing was thereafter immediately imposed. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement and awarded credit for time served.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.

II

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: McKINSTER Acting P.J., MILLER J.


Summaries of

People v. Atherton

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 8, 2011
No. E051441 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Atherton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH ERIC ATHERTON, Defendant…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

Citations

No. E051441 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)