Filed 5/16/07 P. v. Evans 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(El Dorado)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD EUGENE EVANS, Defendant and Appellant. | C053068 (Super. Ct. No. S06CRF0090) |
Pursuant to a negotiated settlement resolving two cases, defendant pleaded no contest to making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422),[1]to deterring an executive officer in the performance of his or her duties ( 69), and admitted a prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Defendants pleas and admission were given in exchange for the dismissal of other counts and a promise of no more than four years in state prison.
Defendant, who waived preliminary hearing and a probation report, was immediately sentenced to four years in prison: the midterm of two years, doubled to four, for the section 422 violation in case No. S06CRF0090, and a concurrent term of two years for the section 69 violation in case No. S05CRF0429. In each case, restitution fines were imposed pursuant to sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45, and defendant was given 67 days of presentence credit in case No. S06CRF0090 and 218 days of credit in case No. S05CRF0429.
Defendant stipulated that on or about November 30, 2005, he deterred an executive officer, Robert Heindl of the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, from performing his duties, and on March 15, 2006, he made a threat to Sergeant Pilling. The threat was to commit a crime which would result in death or great bodily injury and was made with the specific intent that it be so taken by the victim.
Defendant appeals in case No. S06CRF0090. We appointed counsel to represent him 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 have elapsed, and we have 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.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
