Filed 1/18/19 P. v. Marino 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JIMMY ALBERT MARINO, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C087278
(Super. Ct. No. 17CF04871)
|
Defendant Jimmy Albert Marino, Jr., had multiple contacts with the victim in violation of a restraining order protecting her from him. Between June and September 2017, defendant tried to ram the victim’s car with another vehicle, followed her home and parked near her house, had dinner with her, watered her plants outside her residence, attempted to contact her, yelled at her, left signs for her in her yard expressing his love, asked someone to give her a hug, and attempted to friend her on social media using a fake name.
He was charged with disobeying a domestic violence protective order with a prior and stalking. It was further alleged that he had a prior conviction for violating Penal Code[1] sections 273.5, 273.6, and 422.
Defendant pled no contest to stalking in exchange for dismissal of all other charges and dismissal of a separate case. The other counts and allegations were dismissed with a Harvey[2] waiver, and defendant also agreed that the court could impose a 10-year restraining order under section 136.2.
Before sentencing, the court granted defendant’s motion to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]. The court later denied defendant’s motions to dismiss and modify the probation report and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for stalking. The court awarded 202 days of actual credit and 202 days of conduct credit for a total of 404 days of credit. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, suspended unless parole was revoked, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. The court imposed a 10-year restraining order protecting the victim and reserved jurisdiction to award restitution to her. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
Robie, J.
We concur:
/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.
/s/
Mauro, J.
