P. v. Baltadjian
Filed 9/28/06 P. v. Baltadjian CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SARKIS BALTADJIAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B186106 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. PA047259, PA046313) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Schuit, Judge. Affirmed.
Marylou Hillberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sarkis Baltadjian appeals from judgments entered following his guilty plea in case number PA047259 to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) with his admission that the amount of loss was over $150,000 within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2) and his guilty plea in case number PA046313 to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) with his admission that the loss was in excess of $150,000 within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2). In case number PA047259, he was sentenced to four years in prison, consisting of the middle term of two years, enhanced pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.6, subd. (a)(2) by an additional two years. In case number PA046313, the court imposed the middle term of two years in state prison, concurrent to the sentence in case number PA047259.[1]
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On August 14, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgments entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] At the time of appellant’s pleas, it was agreed in both cases that he would receive a sentence of 365 days in county jail and be placed on five years of formal probation, concurrent with any time he received on a probation violation in Kern County. Appellant was released from custody and ordered to return to the court on January 6, 2005 for sentencing. It was also agreed that if appellant failed to return on that date the two matters would become open pleas and he could be sentenced up to the maximum term. Appellant failed to appear for sentencing, which, according to the terms of the plea agreements made the matters open pleas.
