People v. Aguilar CA5

Filed 1/20/15 P. v. Aguilar CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F067984

v. (Super. Ct. No. MF10717A)

SAID AGUILAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Bryan K. Stainfield, Judge. Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Franson, J.

Appellant, Said Aguilar, pled no contest to resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 29, 2013, Aguilar was arrested in California City for resisting arrest causing great bodily injury or death (count 1/Pen. Code, § 148.10, subd. (a)), second degree burglary (count 2/Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (b)), and resisting an executive officer by force (counts 3 & 4/Pen. Code, § 69). On August 7, 2013, Aguilar pled no contest to one count of resisting an executive officer by force (count 3) in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and the upper term of three years local time split into one year in local custody and two years on mandatory supervision. On September 4, 2013, the court sentenced Aguilar pursuant to his plea agreement to one year in local custody and two years on mandatory supervision. Additionally, in an unrelated case Aguilar pled no contest to misdemeanor public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)) and was not sentenced to any additional time on that count. Aguilar’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Aguilar has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.