People v. Qazza CA4/3

Filed 11/23/21 P. v. Qazza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G060307

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00CF2922)

SULEIMAN ABD QAZZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * INTRODUCTION

Defendant Suleiman Abd Qazza appeals from the postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction entered against him in 2001 after a jury found him guilty of two counts of making criminal threats. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified a potential issue to assist us in our independent review. We provided defendant 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. After the 30-day period ended, defendant submitted a supplemental brief; this Court accepted the brief for filing. We have independently examined the entire record and appointed appellate counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and defendant’s supplemental brief; we have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2000, defendant was charged in an information with two 1 felony counts of making a criminal threat in violation of Penal Code section 422 and two misdemeanor counts of making harassing telephone calls in violation of section 653, subdivision (m) against two deputy probation officers. The information alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), and a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). The prosecution moved to dismiss the two misdemeanor counts before trial; the trial court granted the motion. In October 2001, the jury found defendant guilty on both felony counts, and the trial court found the prior conviction sentencing enhancement allegations true.