P. v. Thompson
Filed 3/8/07 P. v. Thompson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MICHAEL VINCENT THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C051968 (Super. Ct. No. CM020141) |
In April 2003, the Butte County Superior Court issued a restraining order restricting defendant Michael Vincent Thompsons contact with D.B. and her children.[1]
In November 2003, defendant tried to run D.B.s ex-husband off the road while D.B. and the ex-husband were driving toward D.B.s residence in separate cars.
In December 2003, defendant pled guilty to stalking. (Pen. Code, 649.6, subd. (b).)[2] Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation on conditions including service of 180 days of incarceration with credit for 72 days and payment of a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4) and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8).
Petitions were filed alleging that defendant violated his probation in October 2004 by terminating his participation in an education program without permission; and in February 2005 by testing positive for methamphetamine and being terminated from the education program. Defendant admitted both violations. Defendant contested a July 2005 petition alleging termination from a treatment program, and the petition was found not true.
In November 2005, a petition was filed alleging defendant violated his probation by twice testing positive for marijuana. He admitted the violation.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the median term of three years with 54 days of custody credit and 26 days of conduct credit. The previously imposed $200 restitution fine was confirmed and a $200 restitution fine was suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45). Defendant was also ordered to pay a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8).
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.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1] Because defendant pled guilty, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officers report.
[2] Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
