People v. Thompson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHANNON MICHELE THOMPSON…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba)

Date published: Dec 10, 2013

C073945 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2013)

Opinion

C073945

12-10-2013

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHANNON MICHELE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant.

DUARTE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. CRF12731)

Appointed counsel for defendant Shannon Michele Thompson 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

On November 14, 2012, defendant threatened to burn a house down. Shortly thereafter, the house was on fire.

Defendant was charged with arson. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b).) When defense counsel expressed a doubt concerning defendant's competence, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed an expert to examine her. The court later found defendant mentally competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings.

Defendant waived her right to preliminary hearing and entered a no contest plea to the charged arson in exchange for a sentencing lid of the low term of three years. The trial court denied probation and sentenced her to state prison for three years. Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we 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 has elapsed, and we have 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.

DUARTE, J. We concur: HULL, Acting P. J. HOCH, J.