People v. Kimbrough CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 5/30/14 P. v. Kimbrough 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E060389
v. (Super.Ct.No. FBA1300092)
CURTIS LAMAR KIMBROUGH, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Vander
Feer, Judge. Affirmed.
Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The trial court ordered defendant to serve the remaining term of his two-year
county prison sentence for forgery after he admitted to violating his mandatory
supervision by committing a new crime. He challenges this order, but we affirm it.
1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2013, defendant pled guilty to forgery (Pen. Code § 470, subd. (a)) in
exchange for an agreed-to two-year county prison split sentence. The trial court ordered
defendant to serve an initial term of 120 days (60 days actual and 60 days conduct credit),
with 20 months suspended, followed by release on mandatory supervision.
On December 9, 2013, defendant admitted that he violated the terms of his
mandatory supervision by possessing or receiving stolen property. In exchange, the court
ordered him to serve the remainder of the two-year county prison sentence and dismissed
his new stolen property case, FVI1303835. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an
independent review of the record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
2
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
RICHLI
J.
3