People v. Pamuk CA2/1

Filed 10/27/25 P. v. Pamuk CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B336517

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA502090) v.

AHMET PAMUK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deborah S. Brazil, Judge. Dismissed. Agopoglu Law Corp. and Berc Agopoglu, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shezad H. Thakor and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

Ahmet Pamuk appeals from an order denying his motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.1 In the same order denying diversion, the trial court accepted Pamuk’s no-contest plea to a felony charge of carrying a concealed firearm and directed him to complete six months of a mental health program. The court set a date nine months later for a probation and sentencing hearing, at which, depending on whether Pamuk successfully completed the program, the court would either reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor and sentence him without placing him on probation, or sentence him on the felony conviction to three years in county jail and place him on probation for two years. After the parties briefed the merits of the trial court’s denial of diversion, we directed the parties, pursuant to Government Code section 68081, to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the record contains a final judgment within the meaning of Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (a), and whether, if the record does not contain a final judgment, we must dismiss the appeal. In his letter brief, Pamuk does not address either of the two issues we specified; instead, he repeats his arguments on the merits. The Attorney General argues that the record does not contain a final judgment and that we must dismiss the appeal. We conclude that the trial court’s order denying diversion is not appealable because it neither imposed sentence nor granted probation. (See § 1237.) Further, the record contains no subsequent order or judgment. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.