Filed 4/11/17 P. v. Fielding CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MIGUEL FIELDING,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150331

(Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. SCR-686091)

In this appeal, counsel for appellant has filed a declaration stating he has reviewed the record in this matter and decided to file a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. He has written appellant and advised him of his conclusion. He told appellant he may file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues Fielding believes should be addressed. More than 30 days have passed and no supplemental brief has been received by this court. We have reviewed the record in this case and conclude the judgment should be affirmed. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 11, 2017, and it is timely.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An information was filed in the County of Sonoma on October 7, 2016. The appellant was charged with three criminal offenses: Count 1, a violation of Penal Code section 368, subdivision (b)(1) (elder abuse); count 2, a violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon); and count 3, a violation of section 136.1, subdivision (a)(2) (attempting to dissuade a witness).
On December 9, 2016, appellant entered into a plea bargain with the district attorney. He entered a no contest plea to count 1 (elder abuse) and the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining counts of the information. Under the agreement, the sentence imposed would be a “top” of the midterm three-year term of imprisonment. At sentencing on January 10, 2017, the court denied probation and sentenced appellant to a three-year term of imprisonment. He received custody credits of 257 days, combining actual and behavior credits.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
When the plea of no contest was received, the parties stipulated the investigation constituted the factual basis for the plea. Appellant’s trial counsel did not recite particular facts supporting the plea. We have relied on the factual portion of the presentence report for pertinent details underlying this no contest plea.
Appellant had a poor relationship with his 69-year-old father. They had not spoken for several months before the incident in this case. Appellant had been released from jail in August 2016. He appeared at the home of his father to claim personal property and some mail. While in the home of his father, appellant became very agitated and started yelling at the elderly parent. He then struck his father with the package of mail and pushed him off his chair onto the floor. Appellant then began kicking his father while he was on the ground. Finally, he hit his father with a chair. All this took place while appellant continued yelling at his father. After appellant left the home, his father went to the police department and complained of soreness in his rib area. The soreness lasted for several days.
DISCUSSION
We are asked to review a judgment after the entry of a no contest plea. In reviewing this record, we find appellant was properly represented by trial counsel at all relevant times and fully advised of his rights and the consequences of this plea. The facts presented in the report legally support the plea in this case. There is no certificate of probable cause in this record triggering further inquiry by this court. We see no reason to disturb the judgment here.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment in this case.



_________________________
Dondero, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P. J.


_________________________
Margulies, J.