California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 2013 No. E058548Unpublished
Filed 10/29/13 P. v. Gamboa CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058548
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1101922)
WILLIAM GAMBOA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Mary E. Fuller,
Judge. Affirmed.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant William Gamboa appeals after he pleaded no contest to
one count of possession of marijuana for sale, and received a promised capped sentence
of two years. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At the change-of-plea proceedings, defendant stipulated that the police report
would provide a factual basis for the plea. According to the police report, Deputy
Solomon, on patrol on the freeway, saw a vehicle make an unsafe lane change. He
motion related that he had been released from county jail and placed on house arrest, the
terms of which allow him to leave the house for purposes of employment. Under Vehicle
Code section 13202, subdivision (c), the period of revocation, after which a defendant
may apply for a driver‟s license, is to be set by the court. Defendant requested the court
to modify the judgment to specify the period of revocation as four months, so that
defendant would be eligible to apply for a new license, which would help him apply for
employment. Defendant pointed out that he was not the driver of the vehicle in question
with respect to this offense. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a notice
of appeal, asserting that the appeal was based on the sentence or on matters that occurred
after the plea.
ANALYSIS
This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a
brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the
case, and identifying one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court abused its
discretion in denying defendant‟s motion to modify the term of revocation of his driver‟s
license. Counsel also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
4
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have conducted an independent review of the record in its entirety and find no arguable
issues. The trial court was within its discretion not to modify its original determination to
revoke defendant‟s driving privilege for a period of one year. Defendant had been paid a
substantial sum to help deliver a very large shipment of marijuana by car.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed; the post-judgment order denying modification is also
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
RICHLI J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and the trial court's denial of his motion to modify the one-year revocation of his driver's license, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to modify the one-year revocation of his driver's license?