People v. Kirk CA2/6 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 8/18/16 P. v. Kirk CA2/6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION SIX
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                   2d Crim. No. B269652
    (Super. Ct. No. 15F-06154)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                              (San Luis Obispo County)
    v.
    ANDREW JACKSON KIRK,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Andrew Jackson Kirk was charged with the unlawful driving or taking of a
    vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Convictions from 1984, 1998 and 2006 were
    alleged as prior strikes and prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.)
    Shortly after his arrest, Kirk pled no contest and admitted one prior strike in
    return for a four-year sentence, comprised of the midterm of two years, doubled to four
    years for the strike. Kirk subsequently moved to withdraw his plea. Following briefing
    and argument, the trial court denied the motion and sentenced Kirk to four years in state
    prison. Kirk was awarded 189 days of presentence custody credit.
    Kirk timely appealed his sentence, but he did not request a certificate of
    probable cause to allow him to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw the no contest
    plea. The appeal lies as to noncertificate issues only. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of
    Court, rule 8.304.)
    We appointed counsel to represent Kirk in this appeal. After examining the
    record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we
    independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    .
    On June 28, 2016, we advised Kirk in writing that he had 30 days within
    which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished to raise on appeal. We
    have received no response.
    According to the probation report, Kirk was driving a car which the police
    spotted at the scene of an accident. The vehicle had been reported stolen. Kirk lied and
    told police he had borrowed the vehicle from its owner.
    We have examined the record and are satisfied that Kirk’s attorney has
    fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that no arguable issue exists.
    (People v. 
    Wende, supra
    , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    PERREN, J.
    We concur:
    GILBERT, P. J.
    TANGEMAN, J.
    Dodie A. Harman, Judge
    Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
    ______________________________
    California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon,
    under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B269652

Filed Date: 8/18/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021