People v. Hanloh CA4/3

Filed 3/24/16 P. v. Hanloh CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G052517

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10CF1450)

BLAIR CHRISTOPHER HANLOH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Blair Christopher Hanloh, in pro. per.; and Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Blair Christopher Hanloh was convicted of filing false documents, in violation of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a). In a previous opinion, this court affirmed defendant’s conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing. The trial court resentenced defendant, and defendant again appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the entire record. We provided defendant 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; he did so. We have examined the entire record, appointed appellate counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, and defendant’s supplemental brief; we find no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted of five counts of recording a false instrument, in violation of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a). Defendant had admitted he signed and recorded quitclaim deeds on five pieces of real property that he was seeking to adversely possess, but in which he actually had no ownership interest. Defendant appealed from his convictions, claiming lack of substantial evidence to support the judgment. In a prior unpublished opinion, we concluded there was more than enough evidence to support the judgment, and therefore affirmed. (People v. Hanloh (May 13, 2015, G049417).) The People had also filed an appeal in that case, arguing the sentencing order, which permitted defendant to serve his sentence in local custody, was improper. We agreed, and remanded the case for resentencing. (People v. Hanloh, supra, G049417.)