People v. Gomez

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD RAY GOMEZ, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Nov 25, 2015

B260804 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015)

Opinion

B260804

11-25-2015

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD RAY GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Kevin Michele Finkelstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

EPSTEIN, P. J

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA134660) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Peter Espinoza, Judge. Affirm. Kevin Michele Finkelstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Richard Ray Gomez appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation and imposed a previously suspended six-year sentence. His appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On June 19, 2015, we directed appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of the brief to appellant and notified appellant of his right to respond within 30 days. We received no response.

In March 2012, appellant pled no contest to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351 (possession of controlled substance). The court struck appellant's 1989 strike conviction and sentenced him to six years in prison, consisting of a three-year high term for the offense itself and one-year terms for each of three prison priors. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation, requiring one year of residential substance abuse treatment. He was given 92 days of presentence custody credit.

In 2014, probation was revoked, and appellant was found to be in violation, having been terminated from the treatment program and arrested for possession of stolen gasoline. The court imposed the previously suspended sentence and awarded 436 days in presentence credit.

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues for appeal exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.