Filed 5/4/22 P. v. Parda CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge.

Paul Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Steven Parda asked this court to 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. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2018, defendant accused his live-in girlfriend of cheating on him. He pulled her into the bathroom, reached into the toilet, retrieved his feces, and told her he was going to make her “ ‘eat [his] sh[**].’ ” He shoved the feces onto her face and attempted to force them into her mouth. He grabbed her by the hair, forced her to her knees, and pushed her head into the bathtub under running water. He then dragged her into the bedroom and pinned her down with his knees against her face. Eventually, she was able to run away from the house.

On January 29, 2019, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a);[1] count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2), and criminal threats (§ 422; count 3). The information further alleged defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)).[2]

On April 4, 2019, defendant pled no contest to count 2 in return for three years’ felony probation.

On June 5, 2019, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted the agreed-upon three-year probation term, and imposed various fines and fees.

On December 12, 2019, defendant admitted violating probation, and the trial court reinstated probation with 60 days in jail.

On February 22, 2021, defendant admitted violating probation in exchange for the low term of two years in prison. On April 8, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison, as agreed.

On May 4, 2021, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] It appears the two strike conviction allegations are identical and the two serious felony conviction allegations are identical. Later, the trial court dismissed all four allegations as “invalid,” according to the plea bargain.