Filed 9/18/17 P. v. Dean 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DESHAWN DEKKERRIO DEAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
C084082
(Super. Ct. Nos. CM043775, CM043839)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant DeShawn Dekkerrio Dean 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
According to the probation report, defendant and three other individuals entered a residence through an unlocked sliding glass door and took property from four persons inside. That same month, defendant entered the home of the 17-year-old mother of his infant child, found her with another man, struck her repeatedly and attempted to strangle her.
Defendant pleaded no contest in case No. CM043839 to first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (a)(1)(B)),[1] and he pleaded guilty in case No. CM043775 to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), in return for dismissal of all other counts and allegations with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) and a stipulated seven-year state prison lid. The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea could be taken from the probation report.
The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison, awarded 524 days of presentence credit (456 actual days and 68 conduct days), and ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) in each case, retaining jurisdiction over victim restitution.
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, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
MURRAY, J.
/S/
DUARTE, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
