Filed 11/1/17 P. v. Gosnell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Tehama)
----





THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONALD MICHAEL GOSNELL,

Defendant and Appellant.
C084689

(Super. Ct. No. 16CR001064)





Appointed counsel for defendant Donald Michael Gosnell has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist 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 affirm the judgment.
I
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.)
A Tehama County Sheriff’s Deputy responded to a report of a prowler and encountered defendant in the backyard of a residence. Defendant approached and threatened the deputy several times and ignored the deputy’s repeated commands to stop, telling the officer he did not believe he was a deputy. Defendant also said, “ you are not going to stop me,’ ” shouted profanities, and threatened the officer that he was going to “ ‘get’ ” him. Defendant continued from one residence to another trying to open doors. The deputy followed and ordered defendant to stop. At one point, defendant rushed toward the deputy and threatened to kill him, then threw rocks and other items at him. Defendant eventually picked up a board and charged the deputy, threatening to kill the deputy with it. When the officer backed up, defendant threw the board, just missing the deputy. The officer retreated to his patrol car to call for backup, and defendant threw a large rock through the rear window of the patrol car, shattering it.
When backup arrived, the officers attempted to stop defendant, who continued to ignore commands to comply. After deploying a taser, striking defendant’s legs with a baton, firing beanbag rounds, and physically fighting with defendant, the officers were eventually able to subdue defendant inside a residence.
Defendant was charged by information with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count I), two counts of assault on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (c); counts II & III), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count IV), two counts of resisting an executive officer (§ 69; counts V & VI), and vandalism with over $400 in damage (§ 594; count VII). The information alleged defendant used a deadly weapon in committing count IV (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and committed count VII while subject to revocation of his driver’s license (Veh. Code, § 13202.6).
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to counts II, III, IV, and VII and admitted the deadly weapon enhancement in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations. The parties stipulated to a factual basis as summarized in the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office crime report.
The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to four years (the middle term) on count II, plus concurrent terms of four years for count III, three years for count IV, and three years for count VII, for an aggregate term of four years in state prison. The court imposed fees and fines as set forth in the probation report, including victim restitution in the amount of $332.94 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), and awarded defendant 236 days of presentence custody credit (118 actual days plus 118 conduct credits).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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.



/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.


We concur:



/s/
Hull, J.



/s/
Duarte, J.