P. v. Beltran

Filed 3/10/06 P. v. Beltran 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Leo Angelo Beltran appeals from the judgment following his nolo contendre plea to corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a))[1][1], dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), making criminal threats (§ 422), and misdemeanor cruelty to a child by endangering health (§ 273a, subd. (b)). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant admitted special allegations that he inflicted great bodily injury involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he had suffered a prior felony strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subds. (d)(1)-(e)(1).)

Before sentencing, appellant made a motion to dismiss the counts for dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) and making criminal threats ( § 422). The trial court denied the motion and sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 18 years state prison. With respect to misdemeanor conviction for cruelty to a child by endangering health (§ 273a, subd. (b)), appellant received a 180-day concurrent sentence. Appellant was ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $10,000 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and $1,237.07 victim restitution (§ 1202.4. subd. (f)).

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

On January 10, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions that he wished to raise on appeal. We have receive no response from appellant.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

COFFEE, J.

Timothy J. Staffel, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Lyn A. Woodward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Publication courtesy of San Diego minimum wages lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) and San Diego lawyers directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/)

[1][1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.