People v. Allen CA3

California Court of Appeal

People v. Allen CA3

DecidedOctober 30, 2013

DocketC073479

StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Allen CA3 (People v. Allen CA3) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Allen CA3, (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 10/30/13 P. v. Allen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073479

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF122145A)

v.

WILLIE JAMES ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On November 13, 2012, defendant Willie James Allen walked out of a store with merchandise for which he had not paid. He was caught by a loss prevention officer with whom defendant would not comply. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of the midterm of three years in state prison. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.

1 Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HULL , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

MURRAY , J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Filed 10/30/13 P. v. Allen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073479

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF122145A)

v.

WILLIE JAMES ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On November 13, 2012, defendant Willie James Allen walked out of a store with merchandise for which he had not paid. He was caught by a loss prevention officer with whom defendant would not comply. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of the midterm of three years in state prison. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.

1 Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HULL , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

MURRAY , J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Allen CA3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allen-ca3-calctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack