From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte
Nov 20, 2009
No. C061685 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY JAMES MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. C061685 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Butte November 20, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CM029490

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

Defendant Danny James Mitchell wrote numerous checks to merchants without having sufficient funds in his checking account. As a result of his failure to pay the entire outstanding balance owed, defendant was arrested and charged. Represented by counsel, defendant pleaded no contest to three counts of fraudulently issuing a check with insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a)) having a prior conviction for the same (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (b)) as alleged in counts 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint, and admitted serving two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), in exchange for dismissal with a Harvey waiver of all remaining charges, as well as several other cases pending against him.

People v. Harvey (1979) 29 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).

The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count 5, a concurrent three-year term on count 6, a concurrent three-year term on count 7, plus one consecutive year each for the two prior prison terms, for an aggregate sentence of five years in state prison. The court imposed specified fees and fines, and reserved jurisdiction over the amount of victim restitution to be paid in the present case as well as one of the dismissed cases. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

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 in favor of defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: ROBIE, J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte
Nov 20, 2009
No. C061685 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY JAMES MITCHELL, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte

Date published: Nov 20, 2009

Citations

No. C061685 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2009)