From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marsh

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Lassen
May 17, 2011
No. C066423 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2011)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN NORWOOD MARSH, Defendant and Appellant. C066423 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Lassen May 17, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CR027514

DUARTE, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Norwood Marsh has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

The Lassen County Sheriff’s Department received a report that defendant, a convicted felon recently discharged from parole, was in possession of a firearm. In a recorded telephone conversation with the reporter, defendant admitted that he was in possession of the gun. During the subsequent service of a search warrant on his residence, defendant admitted that he had a gun in a kitchen drawer. A search of the drawer yielded a revolver, a holster, a loaded ammunition clip, and several cartridges of ammunition.

Because the matter was resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange, a prior prison term allegation was dismissed and his state prison exposure was limited to 16 months. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)

Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

On August 31, 2010, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with conditions including one year of incarceration, a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), and a $200 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44). The trial court also imposed a 10 percent administrative fee on the restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (l)), that totaled $20 and was added to the restitution fine as noted in the order of probation. He was awarded 17 days of custody credit (actual time). Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was granted.

Although the probation order refers to a $220 restitution fee, rather than a $200 restitution fine plus a $20 administrative fee, the $20 fee was properly added to the restitution fine.

Although no conduct credit was granted at the time of sentencing, which was error, appellate counsel subsequently requested the trial court correct the calculation of presentence credit and represented in his brief that his motion (requesting 16 days of conduct credit) was granted.

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. (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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., BUTZ, J.


Summaries of

People v. Marsh

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Lassen
May 17, 2011
No. C066423 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Marsh

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN NORWOOD MARSH, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Lassen

Date published: May 17, 2011

Citations

No. C066423 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2011)