From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Timbol

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 22, 2012
D059271 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012)

Opinion

D059271

02-22-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALVIN MAMANGUN TIMBOL, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD220467)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.

In February 2010, Alvin Mamangun Timbol entered a negotiated guilty plea to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). In March the court sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life: 15 years to life for second degree murder plus 10 years (the upper term) for personal firearm use. Timbol appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On November 14, 1995, Timbol participated in the commission of a burglary of a locked vehicle belonging to David Hessler. In the course of the burglary, Timbol shot and killed Hessler.

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 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court properly stated reasons for imposing the upper term on the firearm use enhancement; and (2) whether all of the fines imposed could be imposed retroactively or whether they were barred by the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.

We granted Timbol permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Timbol has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________

McINTYRE, J.

______________________

O'ROURKE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Timbol

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 22, 2012
D059271 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Timbol

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALVIN MAMANGUN TIMBOL, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 22, 2012

Citations

D059271 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012)