Filed 6/19/17 P. v. Jeffrey 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RYAN ALEXANDER JEFFREY,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083410

(Super. Ct. No. 15F06741)



Appointed counsel for defendant Ryan Alexander Jeffrey asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are 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 will affirm the judgment.
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.)
I. BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2015, the victim went to a country rodeo bar. He had had a number of shots of whiskey before arriving, and may have drunk more at the bar. He would later describe himself as drunk but not belligerent.
At the bar, the victim ate a hamburger and fries. When he finished, he went to return the tray to the cashier. The bar was full, and there was a line of people waiting for the cashier. He decided to cut in line, not feeling the need to stand in line to return his tray.
Defendant, who was standing at the bar (and who was on his third rum and coke), told him, “there’s no cutting in line.” The victim responded that he was just returning his food tray. Defendant, repeated, “there’s no cutting in line.” The victim, again, explained he was returning his tray. The music was loud, and they had difficulty hearing each other.
The next thing the victim remembered, defendant hit him in the face with a glass cup. The glass “exploded.” The victim then grabbed defendant’s arm and tried to take him to the ground. Defendant was submissive and did not fight back.
The two were quickly separated by the crowd. The victim was bleeding profusely. He had a hole in his face, and his tongue could be seen through it.
Defendant would later say he was horrified by what he had done. “I couldn’t believe I just hit the guy in the face with a glass.” The victim now has a scar and sometimes drools when he talks, having lost feeling to the left side of his lower lip due to nerve damage from the incident.
The jury convicted defendant of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) But it acquitted him of assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years of formal probation, and ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail. It awarded 60 days of credit (30 custody, 30 conduct), and ordered various fines and fees, including $2,300 in restitution to the victim.
II. DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting 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 of his 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 examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/S/

RENNER, J.



We concur:


/S/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.


/S/

ROBIE, J.