Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Smith

P. v. Smith

Filed 4/18/07 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

RICHARD LEE SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

C053819

(Super. Ct. No. CM025142)

In June 2006, defendant Richard Lee Smith became angry with the victim regarding what he perceived as her infidelity. He yelled at her, dragged her by the hair, pushed and pulled her, ripped her clothing, and hit her in the face approximately five times.^{^[1]}

In August 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a); further statutory references are to the Penal Code) and admitted two prior convictions of that offense. As a result of the plea, defendants probation in three unrelated cases was revoked.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years, awarded 99 days of custody credit and 48 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay an $800 restitution fine ( 1202.4), an $800 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8).

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 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.

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

We concur:

DAVIS , J.

MORRISON , J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.

^{^[1]} Because defendant pleaded guilty, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officers report.

Description	In June 2006, defendant Richard Lee Smith became angry with the victim regarding what he perceived as her infidelity. He yelled at her, dragged her by the hair, pushed and pulled her, ripped her clothing, and hit her in the face approximately five times. In August 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a); further statutory references are to the Penal Code) and admitted two prior convictions of that offense. As a result of the plea, defendants probation in three unrelated cases was revoked. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.