From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DeLeon-Ramos

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Feb 23, 2012
G045907 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)

Opinion

G045907

02-23-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GONZALO DELEON-RAMOS, Defendant and Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 11HF2368)


OPINION

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert C. Gannon, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Gonzalo DeLeon-Ramos pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). The court dismissed a misdemeanor charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.) He was sentenced to three years' formal probation with several terms. This included 33 days in jail but he was given credit for 23 days served and 10 days for good conduct.

After defendant appealed we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case and the disposition. He did not argue against defendant but advised the court he had not found any issues to present on defendant's behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) In a footnote he explained defendant's trial counsel had argued, that although "it's kind of a moot point" because defendant received "a credit for time served offer," she believed defendant was entitled to half-time credits at least after October 1, 2011, when Penal Code section 4019 was amended, if not for all his time served. She acknowledged the court and the prosecution believed that where the offense was committed before October 1, 2011, the amended statute did not apply. As trial counsel agreed, it is irrelevant whether defendant was entitled to additional credits under amended Penal Code section 4019 because of his plea agreement.

Appellate counsel filed a declaration with the opening brief detailing his efforts, and those of Appellate Defenders, to locate defendant to serve him. Neither was able to do so. Therefore, no copy of the brief was served on him. Because there is no good address for defendant, we did not serve him with a notice he had 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. We examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues were present and found none. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)

The judgment is affirmed.

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, J. IKOLA, J.


Summaries of

People v. DeLeon-Ramos

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Feb 23, 2012
G045907 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)
Case details for

People v. DeLeon-Ramos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GONZALO DELEON-RAMOS, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Feb 23, 2012

Citations

G045907 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)