People v. Contreras CA6

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 22, 2014
DocketH039829
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Contreras CA6 (People v. Contreras CA6) 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. Contreras CA6, (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Filed 1/22/14 P. v. Contreras CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039829 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1246327)

v.

STEVEN RAYMOND CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Steven Raymond Contreras was convicted of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4) in 1988. Due to this conviction, he is required to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (c).) In 2012, he failed to comply with his sex offender registration obligations. He was charged by complaint with failing to reregister as a sex offender within five days of becoming a transient (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (b)) and failing to inform law enforcement of his new address (Pen. Code, § 290.013, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged that he had suffered three prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant pleaded no contest to the failing to reregister count and admitted the prison priors in exchange for dismissal of the other count and an agreed sentence of two years in prison. The court struck the punishment for the prison priors and imposed the agreed two-year prison term. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________ Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________ Elia, Acting P. J.

_____________________________ Grover, J.

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

Related

People v. Wende
600 P.2d 1071 (California Supreme Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Contreras CA6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-contreras-ca6-calctapp-2014.