Filed 7/28/17 P. v. Bondley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MILES MICHAEL KENNETH BONDLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.


C083726

(Super. Ct. No. 16CF04147)


Appointed counsel for defendant Miles Michael Kenneth Bondley has 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
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.)
As of June 28, 2016, defendant was homeless. Defendant’s family member, L.B., felt sorry for him and let him spend the night in her home. The next morning, she feared an altercation between defendant and her husband, J.R. L.B. woke defendant, who grew so mad that he was “shaking” and “vibrating.” He also had an “intense look on his face that [L.B.] had never seen before.” Defendant approached L.B. within inches of her face and threatened to kill her and J.R. Defendant picked up a glass decoration filled with oil and raised it over his head, as if to strike her. L.B. fled to a neighbor’s house and defendant left. L.B. told police she was very afraid of defendant and feared he would return and harm her or burn her house down. She hoped defendant would be arrested and “never get out.” Police were unable to locate defendant.
On July 31, 2016, defendant again showed up at L.B. and J.R.’s home and asked to spend the night. Defendant overheard J.R. complaining to L.B. about defendant’s behavior, and the two men began to argue. J.R.’s dogs began fighting. When J.R. turned to stop the dogs, defendant hit J.R. on the back of his head with a glass object. J.R. suffered a cut. Again, police were unable to locate defendant. Defendant was on probation at the time of both incidents.
Defendant was charged with making criminal threats (count 1; Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 2; § 245, subd. (a)(1)). With respect to count 2, it was also alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
On October 26, 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2. The trial court dismissed the remaining allegations with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. During the November 30, 2016 sentencing hearing, L.B. told the court she was no longer afraid of defendant and would support defendant through any recovery he needed. She also thought probation was appropriate and wanted the existing restraining order lifted. The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of three years eight months in prison, as follows: three years for count 2 and eight months consecutive for count 1. (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 422, subd. (a), 1170, subd. (h).) The trial court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45). In addition, the trial court imposed an $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a $60 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court awarded 193 days of credit.
Defendant filed a timely appeal and did not seek a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
RAYE, P. J.



/s/
NICHOLSON, J.