P. v. Turnbull











Filed 3/22/17 P. v. Turnbull 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sutter)
----





THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM TURNBULL,

Defendant and Appellant.



C082319

(Super. Ct. No. CRF152122)







Appointed counsel for defendant William Turnbull asked 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 will affirm the judgment.
I
James Chaffeewas driving along his street early one evening when he saw defendant trying to pry open a car door with a crowbar. Chaffee stopped his truckand askeddefendant what he was doing. Defendant told Chaffee it was none of his business and to leave him alone.
Chaffee parked in his driveway and walked over to defendant. Defendant swung the crowbar at Chaffee, missing him, and said he was going to rip Chaffee’s head off. Defendant left and walked home.
Chaffee told a deputy dispatched to investigate the incidentthat defendant held a pry bar over his head and said, “I’ll take care of you with this, and then I’ll bash your head in.”
A jury convicted defendant of attempted criminal threats (Pen. Code, §§ 422, 664) and brandishing a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)). It also found true an enhancement allegation for personal use of a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three yearswith various terms and conditions, including 90 days in jail. The trial court awarded defendant 36 days of presentence credit (18 actual days and 18 custody days)and ordered him to pay various fines and fees.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 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.



/S/
MAURO, J.



We concur:



/S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.



/S/
RENNER, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com