Filed 2/16/18 P. v. Ruschaupt CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER TODD RUSCHAUPT,

Defendant and Appellant.

F075366

(Super. Ct. No. F16907094)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Wayne R. Ellison, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Fresno Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

.
Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Todd Ruschaupt asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded with a supplemental brief, in which he requests that we consider that at the time of his arrest he had been suffering from, and treated for, bipolar disorder for over one year. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On November 27, 2016, defendant entered a garage attached to a residence and stole a motorcycle while someone was inside the residence.
On February 1, 2017, defendant pled no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), and he admitted having suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a) (d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). In addition, he admitted the allegation that the burglary was a violent felony because he committed it while a nonparticipant was present in the residence (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Defendant raised a Romero motion to strike the prior felony conviction allegation, but the trial court denied the motion based on defendant’s criminal history.
The same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison: the low term of two years doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court indicated it took into account defendant’s circumstances, including his homelessness, in imposing the low term. The court also imposed fines and fees and awarded credits.
On March 23, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal and two others thereafter, twice requesting a certificate of probable cause on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Romero motion and that a mental health issue explained his bizarre behavior on the date of the crime. The trial court denied his requests for a certificate of probable cause.
Having reviewed the entire record, we see no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.