Filed 4/4/17 P. v. Tillman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STANLEY TILLMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082674

(Super. Ct. No. 15F05940)




This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
A jury convicted defendant Stanley Tillman of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on a cohabitant (count one; Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)); rape (count two; § 261, subd (a)(2)); making a criminal threat (count three; § 422); and felony false imprisonment (count four; § 236). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted a prior juvenile strike adjudication.
After denying defendant’s request to strike the prior strike, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 20 years eight months, consisting of eight years (the upper term) on count two, one year consecutive on count one, and eight months consecutive on counts three and four, all doubled for the strike. The court awarded defendant 354 days of presentence custody credit (308 actual days & 46 conduct days). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $160 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $120 conviction fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court also awarded victim restitution in an amount to be determined.
The trial evidence showed that on September 25, 2015, defendant brutally beat and raped the victim, his cohabitant, in the condominium they shared, repeatedly prevented her from leaving, and repeatedly threatened to kill her both during and after the assault. Defendant admitted a juvenile adjudication for assault by means of force likely to commit great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)) in 2001.
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. (Wende, supra, 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.



RAYE , P. J.



We concur:



BUTZ , J.



HOCH , J.