P. v. Baltsas
Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Baltsas CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVAN K. BALTSAS, Defendant and Appellant. | D047268 (Super. Ct. No. SCS191128, SCS191576) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Esteban Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Evan K. Baltsas entered negotiated guilty pleas to two counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460),[1] one with a third person, not an accomplice, in the home (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(1)), two counts of fraudulent use of an access card (§ 484g, subd (a), and one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to prison for six years eight months: the four-year middle term on one count of residential burglary with a consecutive eight-months on each conviction of fraudulent use of an access card (one-third the middle term), and one year four months on the second residential burglary conviction (one-third the middle term). It stayed sentence for receiving stolen property (§ 654) and struck the third person in the residence enhancement on a burglary conviction (§ 1385). The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Baltsas's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the middle term on one of the burglary convictions; (3) whether the trial court stated proper reasons for imposing consecutive terms; (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation; and (5) whether Baltsas was denied effective assistance of counsel.[2]
We granted Baltsas permission to file a brief on his own behalf. On February 28, 2006, we granted Baltsas's request for a 30-day extension to file a supplemental brief. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Baltsas on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Because Baltsas entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
