Opinion
D073311
05-16-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YUSUF HAGIHASSAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Arthur B. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD260517, SCD267781) APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maureen F. Hallahan, Polly H. Shamoon, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judges. Affirmed. Arthur B. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Yusuf Hagihassan appeals from a judgment in two cases in which he pled guilty and was sentenced collectively to a prison term of four years, four months following the revocation of probation.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Hagihassan has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having considered the briefing and having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2015, in Case No. SCD260517, Hagihassan pled guilty to one count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1) and one count of misdemeanor battery (§ 242; count 4). As a basis for the plea, Hagihassan stated that on or about January 7, 2015, he "unlawfully committed an assault upon a victim by means of force likely to produce GBI and a simple battery upon a victim."
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On August 25, 2016, in Case No. SCD267781, Hagihassan pled guilty to one count of unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), and one count of possessing a firearm as a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). As stated on the plea form, Hagihassan "unlawfully took a vehicle belonging to my sister without her permission and failed to bring it back to her when she asked, I had the intent to temporarily deprive, and possessed a firearm when I was legally a convicted felon."
On September 22, 2016, the trial court sentenced Hagihassan together in both cases, placing him on three years formal probation.
In July 2017, Hagihassan pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and admitted a probation violation. The trial court revoked the grant of probation in Case Nos. SCD260517 and SCD267781. In both matters in which probation was revoked, the trial court ordered a forensic diagnostic evaluation through the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to section 1203.03.
On December 13, 2017, the trial court held a sentencing hearing in Case Nos. SCD260517 and SCD267781, and imposed a collective sentence of four years, four months in prison. Specifically, in Case No. SCD260517, the trial court imposed a midterm sentence of three years on count 1, with a concurrent six-month sentence on count 4, and in Case No. SCD267781, it imposed a consecutive sentence of 16 months, consisting of two midterm eight month sentences for count 1 and count 2. At the sentencing hearing, there was discussion of the diagnostic evaluation that was performed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Defense counsel stated that the evaluation "came back with the recommendation that he should be reinstated on probation and given a chance at rehabilitation," and requested that he be sentenced according to that recommendation. The trial court disagreed, concluding that a prison sentence was appropriate, due in part to its concern for the safety of the public.
Hagihassan filed an appeal in both cases based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the guilty pleas.
II.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende.
Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): "Whether the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to prison after a [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] diagnostic evaluation 'came back with a recommendation that [appellant] should be reinstated on probation and given a chance at rehabilitation.' "
After we received counsel's brief, we gave Hagihassan an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but Hagihassan did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Hagihassan has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
IRION, J. WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. NARES, J.