P. v. Ghane
Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Ghane CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ESMAIL GHANE, Defendant and Appellant. | G035596 (Super. Ct. No. 00SF0418R) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daniel J. Didier, Judge. Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
We appointed counsel to represent ESMAIL GHANE on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against Ghane, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Ghane was given 60 days to file written argument in his own behalf, and he filed with us a 50-paged written argument with approximately 164 pages of uncertified records as attachments.
The judgment is affirmed.
SILLS, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BEDSWORTH, J.
ARONSON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Attorneys.
