legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Dzukola

P. v. Dzukola
06:20:2007

P. v. Dzukola







Filed 9/6/06 P. v. Dzukola 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.


DONALD DZUKOLA,


Defendant and Appellant.



2d Crim. No. B188927


(Super. Ct. No. 1200457)


(Super. Ct. No. 1162253)


(Santa Barbara County)






Donald Dzukola appeals from the judgment following his nolo contendre plea in case number 1200457 to dissuading a witness. (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1).)[1] In case number 1162253, appellant entered a nolo contendre plea to robbery (§ 211) and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). Appellant admitted that the robbery was committed in a residence in concert with others (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and that a principal was armed in the commission of the offenses (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)).


Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced appellant to 11 years state prison and ordered him to pay restitution fines totaling $4,200 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), parole revocation fines (§ 1202.45), victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), and a $36.50 theft fine (§ 1202.5).


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 July 3, 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 not received a response.


We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.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.


Frank J. Ochoa, Judge



Superior Court County of Santa Barbara



______________________________




California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, for Defendant and Appellant.


No appearance for Respondent.


Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.


Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.


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





Description Appeal from the judgment following nolo contendre plea in case number 1200457 to dissuading a witness. In case number 1162253, appellant entered a nolo contendre plea to robbery and dissuading a witness. Appellant admitted that the robbery was committed in a residence in concert with others and that a principal was armed in the commission of the offenses.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale