People v. Dabney

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE DABNEY, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin

Date published: Dec 2, 2009

No. C062292 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE DABNEY, Defendant and Appellant. C062292 California Court of Appeal, Third District, San Joaquin December 2, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. Nos. SF111383A, SF111418A

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

In February 2009, defendant Willie Dabney entered someone’s home through a window, ransacked the home, and stole a television (case No. SF111383A). That same month, defendant pried open the window of a second victim, Fredrick M., in order to gain entry into Fredrick’s home and steal his possessions (case No. SF111383A). The following month, defendant pried open a window in the home of his third victim, Wayne U., went inside, and stole Wayne’s possessions (case No. SF111418A).

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). In exchange, the remaining count of first degree burglary was dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

Consistent with defendant’s plea, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of three years four months, that is, the low term of two years for the burglary in case No. SF111383A, and a consecutive term of one year four months for the burglary in case No. SF111418A. The court awarded 64 days of presentence custody credit and ordered defendant to pay: a $440 restitution fine, a $440 parole revocation restitution fine, a $40 court security fee, a $30 government fee, and a $32.75 law enforcement fee. The court reserved jurisdiction over the issue of direct restitution. Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)

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 that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SIMS, Acting P. J. HULL, J.