People v. Marchand CA3

Filed 11/5/21 P. v. Marchand CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Calaveras) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C093727 v. (Super. Ct. No. 20F8049) DANIEL ROCK MARCHAND, JR., Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Daniel Rock Marchand, Jr., filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the 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 (Wende).) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We will affirm the judgment. 1 BACKGROUND The People’s October 14, 2020 criminal complaint charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count one)1; corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant with a prior (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count two); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count three); unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29805, subd. (b); count four); and destruction of a wireless communication device (§ 591.5; count five). On November 9, 2020, the People amended the complaint to add a violation of a criminal protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1); count six), and defendant pleaded no contest to counts one and six in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a two-year sentencing lid. The stipulated factual basis for his plea was the police report as stated on the plea form. On February 5, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison for count one and a concurrent term of one year for count six with 119 actual credits and 118 conduct credits for a total of 237 custody credits. The trial court also imposed a $750 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $750 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), two $40 court security fees (§ 1465.8), and two $30 court operations assessment fees (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant timely appealed and did not request a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have not received a supplemental brief from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. /S/ MAURO, J. We concur: /S/ BLEASE, Acting P. J. /S/ RENNER, J. 3