Filed 11/7/18 P. v. Colbourn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
ORRIN TYLER COLBOURN,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C085356
(Super. Ct. No. 16CF03132)
|
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
A complaint filed on July 15, 2016, charged defendant Orrin Tyler Colbourn with carrying a dirk or dagger, a felony (Pen. Code, § 21310),[1] and alleged that defendant had three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and committed the offense while on bail (§ 12022.1).
After trial counsel declared a doubt about defendant’s competency (§ 1368), the trial court suspended proceedings and appointed a psychologist to interview him. Defendant was committed to Napa State Hospital until May 24, 2017, when the court declared him competent to stand trial.
On June 7, 2017, defendant pleaded no contest to the charged offense in return for the dismissal of the additional allegations with a Harvey[2] waiver, and of two other trailing cases.
According to the probation report, on July 12, 2016, a Butte County Sheriff’s deputy observed defendant, whom he recognized from prior contacts, walking in south Oroville. Knowing that defendant had an outstanding felony arrest warrant, the deputy detained him. A search of his person found an unsheathed fixed-blade knife in his rear pants pocket.
The probation report noted that defendant did not wish to be placed on probation and would refuse any form of community supervision.
The trial court imposed a sentence of three years (the upper term) in county jail. The court declined to grant mandatory supervision, finding that defendant’s past performance on mandatory supervision and postrelease community supervision had been unsuccessful and he had stated he would not comply with the terms and conditions of supervision.
The trial court awarded defendant 566 days of presentence custody credit (200 actual days, 200 conduct days, and 166 days of state hospital time).
The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court ordered victim restitution to the victim in one of the trailing cases in an amount to be determined.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication 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.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
BLEASE , J.
ROBIE , J.
