Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-060608-7
Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Counsel for appellant Henry Glen Stanford has filed a brief raising no specific issues and asking for our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel sent notice to appellant of his right to file a brief in his own behalf. No such brief was filed. Having conducted such a review, we conclude no arguable issues exist on appeal and affirm.
FACTS
Appellant was charged by information with five felony and two misdemeanor counts arising from a violent assault, burglary, and kidnapping. The victim was his estranged wife, and appellant was alleged to have used scissors in the course of the event.
On January 31, 2007, appellant pled no contest to the entirety of the information. The trial judge explained that the full range of sentencing possibilities—from probation through twelve years and eight months in prison—would be available at the time of sentencing. Specifically, the judge indicated there was no guarantee of a grant of probation or that, if sentenced to prison, appellant would receive the mitigated sentence of three years, which represented the last plea bargain offer from the District Attorney’s Office. The judge advised appellant that, because the allegations involved the use of a deadly weapon, appellant was presumptively ineligible for probation absent unusual circumstances.
Thereafter, the parties filed sentencing memoranda, and the probation department prepared a sentencing report. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, conducted over four days, the court adopted the probation officer’s recommendation and referred appellant to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03. That study recommended that appellant be denied probation and committed to prison. The court adopted that recommendation and imposed the mitigated term of three years in prison for kidnapping. The mitigated-term sentences on the remaining felony counts and the misdemeanor sentences were run concurrently or were stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and the weapon-use enhancements were stricken.
Appellant was vigorously represented by competent counsel. The trial court indulged in a lengthy and thorough examination of the sentencing issues. Appellant’s sentence was well within the bounds of his plea agreement.
We find no arguable issues on appeal and affirm.
We concur: JONES, P. J. SIMONS, J.