Opinion
H043529
02-01-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY CHEATHAM, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1477852)
Defendant Larry Cheatham pleaded nolo contendere to a count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, former spouse or former cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). He was placed on probation for a term of one year. On appeal, defendant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that an independent review under Wende was being requested. We advised defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed, and defendant has not submitted a letter brief.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues. We will provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2014, officers were dispatched to a family disturbance. When officers arrived at the scene, they encountered defendant's 51-year-old wife who was crying and bleeding from a laceration on her nose. Defendant's wife told officers that defendant had hurt her during an argument by yanking her hair and biting her nose until it bled. She had managed to run to a neighbor's residence to call the police after defendant released his grip on her. While there, she saw defendant leaving the scene. After telling defendant that she had called the police, defendant told her he would "be back to finish the job." Defendant's wife returned to her home to discover defendant had smashed her picture frames, broken a large glass table, and thrown a large flat screen television to the floor. She checked her purse and noticed that her wallet, cell phone, and house keys were missing.
Since defendant pleaded nolo contendere, we derive the facts from the probation officer's report.
On June 11, 2015, an information was filed charging defendant with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, former spouse or former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 1), threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (§ 422, count 2), felony vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1), count 3), and petty theft with three or more prior convictions (§ 666, subd. (a), count 4).
Previously, on March 10, 2015, the criminal proceedings were suspended under section 1368 because of doubts as to defendant's mental competency. The court appointed a physician to evaluate defendant. On April 22, 2015, defendant was found competent. --------
On January 7, 2016, defendant pleaded nolo contendere to a count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, former spouse or former cohabitant (count 1) with the understanding that he would serve one year in county jail with probation to terminate upon his release. All other counts were to be dismissed.
On April 22, 2016, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of one year, which was set to terminate that same day. He was also ordered to serve 364 days in county jail and was given credit for 364 days (182 actual days and 182 days of conduct credit). He was also ordered to pay various fines and fees, including a $300 restitution fine, $40 under section 1465.8, $30 under Government Code section 70373, $50 under section 1203.097, and $50 under section 1203.097, subdivision (a)(11)(A). Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Premo, Acting P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Mihara, J. /s/_________
Grover, J.