From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reamer

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 12, 2010
No. D056158 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2010)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK REAMER, Defendant and Appellant. D056158 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division March 12, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court No. SCS232443 of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Mark Reamer entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The plea agreement called for informal probation for three years, conditioned on Reamer serving 365 days concurrent to the time served for a parole violation in another case. The trial court sentenced Reamer in accordance to the plea agreement.

The trial court declined to issue a certificate of probable cause.

FACTS

Reamer admitted possessing a usable amount of methamphetamine.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. 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 refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Reamer's guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently; (2) whether the trial court should have granted Reamer's request for a certificate of probable cause; and (3) whether the trial court misadvised Reamer concerning the consequences of his plea and/or imposed a sentence that was more severe than the sentence to which he agreed in the plea agreement.

We granted Reamer permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Reamer on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J.McDONALD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Reamer

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 12, 2010
No. D056158 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2010)
Case details for

People v. Reamer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK REAMER, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2010

Citations

No. D056158 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2010)