From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tinoco

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Nov 13, 2017
2d Crim. No. B282680 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2017)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B282680

11-13-2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID TINOCO, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 1504722 & 1504160)
(Santa Barbara County)

David Tinoco pled no contest to possessing drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)) in Case No. 1504160. The trial court granted three years of probation under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1210.1). Later, he was charged in Case No. 1504722 and pled no contest to bringing drugs into jail (§ 4573). The court sentenced him to two years in state prison (to be served in county jail), which would run consecutively to an eight-month term imposed in another case (Case No. 1500602). The court terminated the probation that was granted in Case No. 1504160 as unsuccessful. Tinoco filed a notice of appeal, alleging sentencing error. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).)

Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

We appointed counsel to represent Tinoco in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. On September 1, 2017, we advised Tinoco by mail that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Tinoco's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J. We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

James K. Voysey, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Summaries of

People v. Tinoco

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Nov 13, 2017
2d Crim. No. B282680 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2017)
Case details for

People v. Tinoco

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID TINOCO, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Nov 13, 2017

Citations

2d Crim. No. B282680 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2017)