Filed 8/24/17 P. v. Talibdeen CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NAASIR ALI TALIBDEEN,
Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B279235 (Super. Ct. No. YA094223) (Los Angeles County) |
Naasir Ali Talibdeen appeals following his no contest plea to second degree burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 459) and two counts of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer in the performance of her duties (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant also admitted he had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and had served 11 prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange for appellant’s plea, the trial court dismissed the strike and prison priors and sentenced him to two years in state prison. Concurrent 180-day county jail terms were imposed on the two resisting counts. Appellant was also ordered to pay various fines and fees and was awarded 210 days of presentence custody credit.
According to the probation report, police officers observed appellant use a hammer to forcibly enter a business. After appellant exited the building, one of the officers told him to stop and get on the ground. Appellant ran away and a foot chase ensued. The officers eventually caught up with appellant, who continued to resist when they placed him in handcuffs.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. On July 3, 2017, we advised appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
TANGEMAN, J.
Patrick J. Hegarty, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
