Filed 9/28/16 P. v. Sanchez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B265505 (Super. Ct. No. YA090758-01) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. DANIEL SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Sanchez appeals a grant of probation following his conviction of making criminal threats, with a finding that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon during commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 422, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)

During a court trial, the prosecutor presented evidence that on July 19, 2014, Sanchez held two knives and threatened his landlord. Approximately two weeks prior, the landlord obtained a restraining order against Sanchez based upon an earlier incident where Sanchez made criminal threats.

The trial court found Sanchez guilty of the charged count and weapon use allegation. On the prosecutor’s motion, the court dismissed a prior prison term allegation pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (a). It then imposed a four-year prison term but suspended execution of sentence and granted Sanchez five years of formal probation, with terms and conditions including payment of fines and fees, and confinement in county jail for 690 days. The court awarded Sanchez 690 days of presentence custody credit.

We appointed counsel to represent Sanchez in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues.

On July 21, 2016, we advised Sanchez that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Sanchez’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

Scott T. Millington, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________

Katharine Eileen Greenebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.