Opinion
G037522
5-31-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO RODRIGUEZ GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
We appointed counsel to represent Ricardo Rodriguez Gomez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts of the case, noting that Gomez admitted violating his probation after having pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine while in jail. (See Pen. Code, § 4573.6.) Both the admission and the guilty plea were properly taken and recorded. (See Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122; see also People v. Garcia (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 134.) The trial court then imposed a prison sentence of two years for the substance offense. The notice of appeal limited the issues to those affecting the sentence; thus, no certificate of probable cause was obtained or needed.
Appointed counsel did not argue against Gomez, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf following the trial courts correction of the abstract of judgment done in response to notification by the Department of Corrections. We have examined the record and agree with counsels assessment that no arguable issue exists. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Gomez was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from Gomez.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
ARONSON, J.
FYBEL, J. --------------- Notes: It appears that the defendant received one day of presentence credit in excess of that which he had actually earned, assuming the number of days of actual custody were correctly announced to the court by Gomezs counsel. The issue does not warrant further correction.