P. v. Shahid
Filed 5/15/07 P. v. Shahid 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. OMAR HASSON SHAHID, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B191501 (Super. Ct. Nos. 1086856, 1145338) (Santa Barbara County) |
Omar Hasson Shahid appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest pleas to cohabitant abuse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)), marijuana sales (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)), and drunk driving (Veh. Code., 23152, subds. (a) & (b)) in two separate cases where he was placed on probation, subject to various conditions. Among other conditions, appellant was required to obey all laws, and abstain from alcohol and drug use. After several probation violation proceedings in which the court reinstated probation, the court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to three years in state prison, including a two-year low term for cohabitant abuse and a consecutive one-year sentence for marijuana sales. We affirm.
On March 19, 2003, appellant's former spouse, Anita D., went to his apartment to retrieve some personal belongings. They argued and appellant called her names, pushed her against a neighbor's door, and tried to push her over a railing.
On May 9, 2004, Santa Maria police officers arrested appellant for driving under the influence of alcohol. The officers located 50 grams of marijuana "packaged for sale."
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On December 1, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter raising any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Appellant did not respond.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
PERREN, J.
Timothy J. Staffel, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
