P. v. Mendoza

Filed 11/28/05 P. v. Mendoza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO FIGUEROA MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B182490 (Super. Ct. No. 2004028670) (Ventura County)

Eduardo Figueroa Mendoza appeals from the judgment entered following a "slow plea" in which he submitted the issue of his guilt to the trial court on the basis of the preliminary hearing transcript and other documentation. The trial court found him guilty of vehicular manslaughter (count 1) and leaving the scene of an accident involving the death of a person (count 2). (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(3); Veh. Code, § 20001, subds. (a), (b)(2).)^[1] The court also found true the special allegation as to count 1 that he left the scene of the crime within the meaning of section 20001, subdivision (c). The court sentenced appellant to seven years in state prison, consisting of the middle term of two years for the manslaughter charge, plus five years for the enhancement alleged under section 20001, subdivision (c). The court stayed imposition of sentence on count 2. (Pen. Code, § 654.)

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

On August 29, 2005, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Although we have not received a response from appellant, his counsel advised us that appellant wanted his appeal to include the question whether the enhancement alleged under section 20001, subdivision (c) was applicable where the victim's death was caused by the collision itself rather than appellant's subsequent flight from the scene of the accident.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

COFFEE, J.

Glen Reiser, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.

San Diego Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise stated.