P. v. Bhandal
Filed 3/27/06 P. v. Bhandal 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Sutter)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GURJIT SINGH BHANDAL, Defendant and Appellant. | C050964
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF042926, CRF963002)
|
Defendant Gurjit Singh Bhandal, who was on probation in Sutter County case Nos. CRF963002 (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. 3. [false personation]) and CRF042926 (Pen. Code, § 422 [making a criminal threat]), admitted violating probation in each case by testing positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for three years eight months‑‑three years for making a criminal threat, and a consecutive effective term of eight months for the false personation.
Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court 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 have elapsed, and we have 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
MORRISON , Acting P. J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Attorneys.
