People v. Tafoya CA4/1 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/29/14 P. v. Tafoya CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THE PEOPLE,                                                         D065426
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCE309223)
    RICHARD M. TAFOYA,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lantz
    Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
    Avatar Legal and Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Richard M. Tafoya entered a negotiated guilty plea to three counts of using
    personal identifying information of another (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a); all statutory
    references are to this code) (counts 1, 2 & 6) and one count of second degree burglary
    (§ 459) (count 3) and admitted one strike (§ 667 subds. (b)-(i)) and one prior prison term
    (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Tafoya to a stipulated nine years in prison:
    four years (twice the middle term) on count one; 16 months each (one third the middle
    term, doubled) on the remaining counts; and one year for the prison prior. Tafoya
    appeals. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    In February and March 2011 Tafoya obtained the personal identifying information
    of the victims and used their information to commit theft. In February, Tafoya entered a
    store with the intent to commit a felony.
    DISCUSSION
    Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
    proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to
    review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
     (Anders) counsel
    mentions as possible, but not arguable issues (1) whether the court properly limited
    presentence credits to fifty percent of time served and (2) whether the court erred by
    finding Tafoya competent to stand trial.
    We granted Tafoya permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not
    responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible
    issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
    Tafoya has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
    2
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    MCINTYRE, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
    O'ROURKE, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D065426

Filed Date: 9/29/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021