People v. Tajgardoun CA3

Filed 10/27/23 P. v. Tajgardoun CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097687

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 2020- CR0019299) v.

LIDA TAJGARDOUN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Lida Tajgardoun filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of this case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to Tajgardoun, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In August 2022, Tajgardoun pled no contest to conspiring with others to bring drugs into a state prison. The parties stipulated the information provided a factual basis

1

for the plea. In exchange for her plea, the People agreed to a “lid” or maximum of the middle term of three years and to dismiss the remaining charge. The trial court subsequently denied Tajgardoun’s request for probation and sentenced her to the low term of two years. Tajgardoun would serve her term in “county prison.” Tajgardoun timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Tajgardoun was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from Tajgardoun. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Tajgardoun. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

/s/ EARL, P. J.