Filed 7/28/17 P. v. Thomas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yolo)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO LAMAR THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.


C083015

(Super. Ct. No. CRF160864)


Appointed counsel for defendant Antonio Lamar Thomas has 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2016, at a little after midnight, a police officer encountered defendant while he was sitting on a bench in front of the West Sacramento City Hall. Concerned defendant was violating the loitering ordinance, the officer asked defendant for identification. Defendant provided his name, birth date, and volunteered he was on parole and subject to search. Defendant was searched, and found with a pepper spray canister in his pocket.
Defendant was charged with felon in possession of tear gas (Pen. Code, § 22810, subd. (a)) along with a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and three strike (§ 1170.12) allegations.
Twice during the pre-trial proceedings, defense counsel expressed doubt about defendant’s competence. Each time, the trial court suspended proceedings, appointed a doctor, and ordered a psychiatric evaluation of defendant pursuant to section 1368. After each examining psychologist determined defendant was competent to assist in his defense and understand the nature of the charges against him, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated proceedings. Defendant also filed a People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 motion that the trial court subsequently denied after a hearing.
Defendant pleaded no contest to the tear gas charge and admitted a strike. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve a stipulated term of 32 months in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 349 days of presentence credit (175 actual and 174 conduct).
Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appeals.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he asks us to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. As part of the plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to a felony violation of section 22810, subdivision (a), with a stipulated felony disposition, a lower term of 16 months double to 32 months for the strike. The plea agreement bound the trial court; it had no jurisdiction to alter the terms unless the parties agreed. (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931.) The trial court imposed the stipulated sentence. There was no violation of the plea agreement. (See id. at pp. 930-931 [“ ‘ “When a guilty [or nolo contendere] plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement” ’ ”].)
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/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
RAYE, P. J.



/s/
NICHOLSON, J.