Opinion
E056353
11-20-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES A. SWEENEY II, Defendant and Appellant.
Patrick E. DuNah, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. RIF10002885)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios J. Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant James Sweeney II appeals from his conviction after pleading guilty to possessing child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)) and receiving a low-term prison sentence of 16 months. As discussed below, we affirm the conviction.
On June 10, 2010, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant with one count of possessing child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.2, subd. (d)). These crimes took place in 2007 and were initially investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, which eventually submitted the case to the Riverside District Attorney.
On April 19, 2012, defendant pled guilty to possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison, with 1095 total days of custody credits. This appeal followed.
Defendant was to serve a state prison sentence "forthwith" in a companion felony case, RIF150506.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant's request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur: KING
J.
MILLER
J.