Opinion
C068131 Super. Ct. No. SCR76775
02-08-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIM ASHLEY TUPPER, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On March 31, 2010, defendant Kim Ashley Tupper injured his wife when he grabbed and shook her. He was charged with misdemeanor counts of spousal abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and battery (§ 242). Defense counsel then received an amended information alleging defendant had a prior serious felony. In addition, defendant was facing charges in a separate case, which also included the prior serious felony allegation.Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the misdemeanor spousal abuse charge was elevated to a felony offense. Defendant agreed to plead guilty to the felony charge and, in exchange, the other counts and case were dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and found the case to be unusual. Accordingly, the court granted defendant probation. Various probation conditions were imposed, including requiring defendant to enroll in a batterer's treatment program, and prohibiting him from acting as the victim's care provider. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The details of those cases and the charges included in them are not contained in the record on 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, 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 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.
HOCH, J.
We concur:
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
BUTZ, J.