gno.law

People v. Allums CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · B259621 · 2015-07-21 · Unpublished

Area
criminal
Panel
Steven Z. Perren (author), Kenneth R. Yegan, Arthur Gilbert

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 7/21/15 P. v. Allums CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, 2d Crim. No. B259621 (Super. Ct. No. NA098909) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

DENNIS ALLUMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Dennis Allums appeals the order revoking his probation and sentencing him to eight years in state prison. The court had previously imposed and suspended execution of the sentence following appellant's guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and his admission that he had served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (b)). After appellant filed his notice of appeal, he filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). The court granted the petition, reduced appellant's conviction to a misdemeanor, and ordered him to serve 364 days in jail with credit for time served. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. We subsequently advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

2 Laura Laecke, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________ David Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cites, in this corpus