P. v. Martin
Filed 7/25/07 P. v. Martin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LUCAS WAYNE MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant. | C054842 (Super. Ct. No. CM025591) |
Defendant Lucas Wayne Martin walked up behind Peter Brocklesby, who was sitting on a park bench, and stabbed him twice in the neck with a knife. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, personally using a deadly weapon, and inflicting great bodily injury. (Pen. Code 245, subd. (a)(1), 969f, 1192.7, subd. (c), 12022.7, subd. (a); further section references are to the Penal Code.)
Represented by counsel, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to assault with a deadly weapon, and admitted that he personally used a deadly weapon, in exchange for dismissal of the great bodily injury enhancement allegation with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754).
The trial court denied probation, sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years in state prison, with 223 days of presentence custody credit; imposed a restitution fine of $600 ( 1202.4), another restitution fine of $600, suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8); and ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined by the court. The court recommended that defendant attend drug and alcohol counseling while in custody.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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 the opening brief was filed. 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 in favor of defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
