People v. Lindstrom

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN LYLE LINDSTROM, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer

Date published: Jun 24, 2009

No. C060608 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN LYLE LINDSTROM, Defendant and Appellant. C060608 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Placer June 24, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 62079933C

RAYE, Acting P. J.

Trying to exonerate his roommate of child pornography charges, defendant Steven Lyle Lindstrom wrote a letter to authorities taking responsibility for child pornography found on the roommate’s computer. Confronted by the police, defendant admitted the roommate generally told him what to write, and he had confessed to something he did not do. He made the false confession because his roommate and the roommate’s girlfriend helped defendant when he was homeless.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to soliciting another to commit perjury (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (a)); preparing false documents for a fraudulent purpose upon any trial, proceeding, or investigation (Pen. Code, § 134); and conspiracy to commit the crime of preparing false documents (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike. The court subsequently allowed defendant to withdraw his plea to the soliciting count, which was then dismissed. After denying defendant’s motion to strike the prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, the court sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison, ordered various fines and fees, and awarded 303 days’ credit (203 days local time and 100 days conduct).

Defendant appeals without having obtained a certificate of probable cause.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: HULL, J., ROBIE, J.