P. v. Degen
Filed 7/24/06 P. v. Degen CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN ANTHONY DEGEN, Defendant and Appellant. | C051229
(Super. Ct. No. 052254)
|
Defendant John Anthony Degen pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))[1] in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. At the time he committed the assault, he was on probation in two unrelated cases (case Nos. 027275 and 045337), and his no contest plea in this case constituted a violation of his probation in those unrelated cases. All three cases were consolidated for sentencing. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years in prison, consisting of three years four months in case No. 027275; one year (one-third the middle term) in this case, to run consecutively to his sentence in case No. 027275; and eight months (one-third the middle term) in case No. 045337, to run consecutively to his sentences in case No. 027275 and this case. He was awarded 489 days of presentence custody credits (327 actual and 162 conduct). The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $200 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended an additional restitution fine in the same amount pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Real Estate Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
