Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bradford L. Andrews, Judge, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA061806
Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Gerardo Nunez Carbajal appeals from an order revoking probation and imposing sentence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by information with carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1), count 1), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), count 2), and permitting a loaded firearm in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 12034, subd. (a), count 3). On August 23, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 2, and count 3 was dismissed. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on three years’ felony probation. The trial court imposed the usual conditions of probation, including obeying all laws.
On March 22, 2007, Maribel Magana (Magana), the mother of defendant’s children, went to Harbor UCLA Medical Center seeking shelter due to physical and emotional abuse by defendant. She was referred to the police. Officer Roybal took her statement. He then went to defendant’s home and placed defendant under arrest.
According to Magana, on March 18, defendant woke her up and began accusing her of things. He threw things at her, pulled her hair and kicked her. The following day, he again leveled accusations at her. Over the next few days, he threatened her with death four times. The last time, he pointed at her temple with his index finger. After that, she went to the hospital seeking help.
The trial court found defendant in violation of probation based on his abuse of Magana. The court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years on counts 1 and 2, the sentences to run concurrently.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised, inviting this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On October 12, 2007, we wrote to defendant, giving him 30 days in which to submit any issues he wanted to raise. To date, we have received no response. We have reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.