P. v. Bishop
Filed 10/18/07 P. v. Bishop 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK JAMES BISHOP, Defendant and Appellant. | C055173 (Super. Ct. No. 06F5964) |
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.[1] Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Sixteen grass fires were set in the Shasta County area--eight between the dates of September 20 and September 25, 2005, and eight between the dates of July 12 and July 22, 2006. Defendant Mark James Bishop pleaded no contest to seven counts of arson of structure or forest land (Pen. Code, 451, subd. (c)) and admitted he had used a delayed ignition device in setting four of the fires (Pen. Code, 451.1, subd. (a)(5)). He also admitted he had a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In exchange for his plea, nine additional counts and numerous special allegations were dismissed. Defendant also agreed to a stipulated sentence of 27 years in state prison.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated 27 years, imposed a restitution fine of $5,400, a $5,400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, and a $20 court security fee on each count. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45, 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant was awarded 331 days custody credit (221 actual and 110 conduct). (Pen. Code, 4019.) Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.)
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.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] Counsel 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, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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.
