From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Franklin

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Dec 1, 2009
No. D054890 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE R. FRANKLIN, Defendant and Appellant. D054890 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division December 1, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Nos. SCD214500, SCS221744, David J. Danielsen and Esteban Hernandez, Judges.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

In case No. SCD214500, Maurice R. Franklin entered a negotiated guilty plea to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In case No. SCS221744, he entered a negotiated guilty plea to burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460) and admitted the same strike. The court denied Franklin's motions to dismiss the strike. It sentenced him to prison for five years four months: a stipulated four-year sentence (twice the lower term) in case No. SCS221744 and a consecutive 16-month term (one-third the middle term, doubled) in case No. SCD214500. Franklin appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In case No. SCD214500, Franklin possessed stolen property, believing the property had been stolen. In case No. SCS221744, he aided and abetted juvenile codefendants who entered a residence with the intent to commit theft.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to 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 lists, as a possible, but not arguable, issue, the trial court's denials of his motions to dismiss the strike.

We granted Franklin 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 listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Franklin has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., HALLER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Franklin

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Dec 1, 2009
No. D054890 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Franklin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE R. FRANKLIN, Defendant…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 2009

Citations

No. D054890 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2009)