P. v. Motaconrad CA3
mk's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3
Find all listings submitted by mk
By mk
07:21:2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DARLYNE DANETTE MOTACONRAD,
Defendant and Appellant.
C083093
(Super. Ct. No. 16F4762)
Appointed counsel for defendant Darlyne Danette Motaconrad asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Defendant pleaded no contest to obstructing or resisting an officer by use of threats, force, or violence (Pen. Code, § 69) and admitted to a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (id., § 245, former subd. (a)(1)).
The trial court imposed a stipulated 32-month state prison term (the low term doubled for the strike) and awarded 36 days of credit (18 actual, 18 conduct). It also imposed various fines and fees.
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , Acting P. J.
We concur:
MURRAY , J.
RENNER , J.
Description | Appointed counsel for defendant Darlyne Danette Motaconrad asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. |
Rating | |
Views | 7 views. Averaging 7 views per day. |