P. v. Ahluwalia
Filed 6/25/08 P. v. Ahluwalia CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HARPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, Defendant and Appellant. | C056429 (Super. Ct. No. 01F05767) |
Defendant Harpal Singh Ahluwalia was convicted by a jury of two counts of solicitation to commit murder (separate victims) and sentenced to nine years in prison -- the upper term of nine years on count 1 and a concurrent term of six years on count 2.[1] He appealed and in an opinion filed July 5, 2005, we affirmed the judgment.
On June 13, 2007, the superior court granted a new sentencing hearing based on defendants petition for habeas corpus alleging unconstitutional use of aggravating factors for use in imposing the upper term as described in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856].
On July 20, 2007, the court resentenced defendant to nine years in state prison, consisting of the upper term of nine years for count 1 and a concurrent term of six years for count 2. The court stated it was imposing the upper term because there were, as reflected by the jury verdicts, two victims, and defendant received a concurrent term for which he could have received a consecutive sentence.
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 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.
SIMS , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] We take judicial notice of our records in case No. C045210. (People v. Ahluwalia (July 5, 2005, C045210) [nonpub. opn.]; Evid. Code, 452, subd. (d).)
