P. v. Baida
Filed 6/5/08 P. v. Baida CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY BAIDA, Defendant and Appellant. | B202391 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA058834) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert J. Schuit, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Jeffrey Baida appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, after a jury trial, of violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), and the true findings, after a court trial, of one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (a) through (d) and section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) (the "Three-Strikes" law) and seven prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of four years in state prison for the sale of a controlled substance charge, doubled to eight years as a result of the Three Strikes law. The court imposed four one-year consecutive sentences for four of the prior prison terms, and imposed and stayed three one-year terms for the remaining prior prison terms. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On February 13, 2008, defendant filed a supplemental letter brief, requesting that his sentence be reduced from 12 years to six years based on the fact that he was convicted of a non-violent offense.
This court is without authority to grant defendant's request in the absence of trial court error in imposing sentence. After examination of the entire record, we find no sentencing error. We are satisfied that defendant's appellate attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J. KRIEGLER, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
