Opinion
B329743
03-19-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARSHAAD RAHH, Defendant and Appellant.
Jeffrey Manning-Cartwright, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Arshaad Rahh, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. TA159638 Allen J. Webster, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Jeffrey Manning-Cartwright, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Arshaad Rahh, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZUKIN, J.
Defendant Arshaad Rahh was charged by information with fleeing a pursuing police officer's motor vehicle while driving recklessly, a felony.(Veh. Code, § 2800.2.) A jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included misdemeanor offense. (Veh. Code, § 2800.1.) The trial court placed defendant on summary probation for one year, including 258 days of jail time, which, with 129 days of actual custody and 129 days of good time/work time credit, had already been served. Defendant timely appealed.
At the People's request, the trial court dismissed an assault upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)) charge prior to trial. (Pen. Code, § 1385.)
After reviewing the record, defendant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On November 30, 2023, we informed defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On January 5, 2024, defendant filed a supplemental brief consisting of a three-page narrative of claimed events (with attachments). The brief does not contain any legal arguments, no citations to legal authority, and no citations to the record. "This conclusory presentation, without pertinent argument or an attempt to apply the law to the circumstances of this case, is inadequate." (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204.) Defendant provides no basis to reverse the judgment.
We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: COLLINS, ACTING P. J., MORI, J.