P. v. Ali
Filed 7/14/10 P. v. Ali CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HUSSEIN KIETTY ALI, Defendant and Appellant. | D055467 (Super. Ct. No. SCD218670) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielson, Judge. Affirmed.
Hussein Kietty Ali entered a negotiated guilty plea to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459/460)[1] and admitted the truth of a strike prior and serious felony prior (Pen. Code, 667 subds. (a), (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12). Under the plea agreement, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the balance of the amended information. The plea bargain called for a stipulated prison sentence of nine years. The court sentenced Ali to nine years in prison for the instant offense, calculated by selecting the two-year low term for the burglary conviction, doubling it for the strike prior, and adding five years for the serious prior felony enhancement. The court recalculated the sentence in two other cases (Nos. SCD213597, SCD212875), using the instant case as the principal term. In case No. SCD213597, the court sentenced Ali to a consecutive term of 16 months, and in case No. SCD212875, to a consecutive term of eight months. Thus, Ali was sentenced to a total prison term of 11 years. The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $1,800 ( 1202.4, subd. (b)) and an additional fine of $1,800, suspended pending successful completion of parole ( 1202.45). Ali was ordered to pay $200 restitution in case Nos. SCD213597 and SCD212875 ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), and parole revocation fines in the same amount, stayed pending successful completion of parole ( 1202.45). Total custody credits of 398 days were awarded.
A certificate of probable cause was denied.
FACTS
On January 29, 2009, Ali entered a residential building with the specific intent to commit a theft.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. 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. Counsel identifies no possible but arguable issues pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
We granted Ali permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Ali has been adequately represented by counsel on appeal.
DISPOSTION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P.J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
