legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Kramer

P. v. Kramer
09:06:2006

P. v. Kramer




Filed 9/5/06 P. v. Kramer CA6






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT










THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


DANIEL KRAMER,


Defendant and Appellant.



H029648


(Santa Clara County


Super. Ct. No. BB151857)



Defendant, Daniel Kramer appeals from a judgment after a remand for resentencing. Previously a jury found defendant guilty of various crimes and the trial court, prior to sentencing him dismissed two strike priors. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.) On appeal from that judgment, this court reversed the ruling of the trial court granting defendant's motion to dismiss two of three strike priors and then remanded the case for resentencing. (See this court's opinion in People v. Kramer (Oct. 22, 2004, H025399) [nonpub. opn.].)[1] On remand, defendant again filed a motion to dismiss the prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Consistent with this court's opinion in People v. Kramer, supra, H025399, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the strike priors and sentenced the defendant to 25 years to life and 15 years to life to be served consecutively. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.


Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.


Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.


Disposition


The judgment is affirmed.


_____________________________________


rushing, P.J.


WE CONCUR:


_________________________________


PREMO, J.


_________________________________


ELIA, J.


Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.


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


[1] The court grants defendant's request for judicial notice of the prior proceedings in People v. Kramer, supra, H025399.





Description Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, court of appeals reviewed the entire record and concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale