Filed 2/8/18 P. v. Ben-Israel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yuba)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TZADOK VANIYAH BEN-ISRAEL,

Defendant and Appellant.
C084851

(Super. Ct. No. CRF16189)



Appointed counsel for defendant Tzadok Vaniyah Ben-Israel asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated to a factual basis from the police report. We derive the facts from the probation report’s summary of that report.
Defendant fought with his girlfriend, the victim, at their home. During the fight, the victim tried to lock herself in the bathroom, but defendant stopped her from closing the door and forced it open. The victim tried to push past him; she told him to stop or she would call the police.
When the victim picked up her cell phone and entered her password, defendant took the phone and shoved the victim onto the bed. He then hit her face and head with the phone and then threw the phone, breaking it.
The victim then left and found a friend to call the police. When police arrived, they found the victim with a bleeding lip and a three-inch lump on her head.
Defendant pleaded no contest to willfully inflicting corporal injury (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and admitted a prior strike. In exchange, a misdemeanor charge was dismissed, and defendant was released to attend a 52-week batterers’ treatment program. Sentencing would be postponed for a year; if defendant successfully completed the program and obeyed the law his prior strike would be stricken and the prosecution would not object to a probationary sentence. If he did not do these things, he could be sentenced to up to eight years in prison.
A year later, the People moved to revoke defendant’s release and impose sentence, alleging defendant had committed several misdemeanors. The trial court granted the motion. Additionally, defendant had not completed the program.
At sentencing, the trial court denied defendant’s request to strike his prior strike. It then denied probation and imposed an eight-year term for the corporal injury conviction (the four-year upper term, doubled for the strike). It ordered various fines and fees and awarded 100 days of custody credit (50 actual, 50 conduct). Two pending misdemeanor charges were dismissed on the prosecution’s motion.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.




/s/
Robie, J.