P. v. Hahn
Filed 8/29/06 P. v. Hahn CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN EDWARD HAHN, Defendant and Appellant. |
C051954
(Super. Ct. No. 05F09903)
|
Defendant Steven Edward Hahn entered a negotiated plea of no contest to making a criminal threat, a misdemeanor, in exchange for probation and dismissal of the remaining count.[1] The trial court placed him on informal probation for three years on conditions, among others, that he serve 30 days in jail, with credit for one day; that he pay a $100 restitution fine, a $100 probation revocation fine, a $208 booking fee, a $24 classification fee, and a $20 court security fee; that he attend 60 Narcotics Anonymous meetings; and that he have no contact with the victim named in the complaint.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
HULL , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1] The prosecution was commenced in the superior court as a felony case. Hence, appellate jurisdiction is in this court. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen. Code, §§ 691, subd. (f), 1235, subd. (b).)
