P. v. Felix

Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Felix CA3

Received for posting 5/3/06

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

In case No. CM020044, defendant Richard Anthony Felix entered a negotiated guilty plea to corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant or child's parent (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to this code) in exchange for no state prison at the outset.

The court suspended imposition of sentence in case No. CM020044 as well as case No. NCR95424 (misdemeanor violation of § 273.5, subd. (a)), and granted probation in both cases subject to certain terms and conditions including 180 days in jail.

Defendant admitted violating probation by committing a new domestic violence offense in exchange for dismissal of a new case charging misdemeanor violations of sections 273.5 and 273.6 (case No. SCR45282).

Rejecting the recommendations of probation and the prosecutor to sentence defendant to prison, the court reinstated defendant on probation subject to his treatment at Skyway House.

Defendant violated probation. In case No. CM022718, defendant pleaded guilty to another violation of corporal injury and admitted the prior conviction in case No. CM020044 for purposes of sentence enhancement in accordance with section 273.5, subdivision (e)(1).

The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of five years: in case No. CM022718, the midterm of four years; in case No. CM020044, a consecutive one-third the midterm or one year; and in case No. NCR95424, a concurrent term of one year.

Defendant appeals.

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.

MORRISON , Acting P.J.

We concur:

ROBIE , J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.