Opinion
C099106
04-16-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC ROBERT CHARLES DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. CRF220094701, CRF22002786
Wiseman, J. [*]
Appointed counsel for defendant Eric Robert Charles Davis filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of two cases and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2022, defendant and his codefendant were in a vehicle with an elderly victim. They asked the victim for money and indicated they would not let him out unless he complied. The victim was then struck from the area where defendant was sitting. The victim opened the door of the vehicle and fell out, suffering severe injuries.
The People charged defendant in case No. CRF220094701 with attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664), infliction of injury upon an elder or dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)), and false imprisonment (§ 236). As to the robbery and infliction of injury, the People alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on a person over 70 years old (§ 12022.7, subd. (c)). As to the infliction of injury, the People alleged that the victim suffered great bodily injury (§ 368, subd. (b)(2)).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
While released on bail in case No. CRF220094701, defendant failed to appear for a trial readiness conference on December 12, 2022. The People charged defendant in case No. CRF2202786 with the failure to appear while released on bail (§ 1320.5) and alleged that the offense was committed while defendant was out on bail (§ 12022.1).
Pursuant to a global negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to attempted robbery and admitted that he inflicted great bodily injury upon a person over 70 years old in case No. CRF220094701. Defendant also stipulated to the existence of aggravating circumstances such that the upper term could be imposed. In case No. CRF2202786, defendant pleaded no contest to failure to appear while released on bail and admitted the out-on-bail allegation. Under the plea agreement, defendant stipulated to an aggregate sentence of 10 years eight months in prison. Defendant was permitted to enter a residential treatment program for six months. If defendant successfully completed the program, the court would suspend execution of defendant's sentence and grant defendant probation. But if defendant did not complete the program or if defendant violated the terms of his probation, he would serve the sentence.
Defendant was accepted into a treatment program but ultimately failed to enter the program and failed to appear at a subsequent court hearing. The trial court found that defendant violated the terms of his waiver pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247. The court denied defendant's Marsden motion. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the court also denied. Defendant also moved to disqualify the trial judge. The court denied the motion as untimely. The court sentenced defendant to 10 years eight months in prison comprised of three years (the upper term) for the attempted robbery, five years for the great bodily injury enhancement, two years for committing an offense while out on bail and eight months (one-third of the middle term) for failure to appear while out on bail
Defendant timely appealed in case No. CRF220094701. We granted defendant's request to construe his notice of appeal to include case No. CRF2202786.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of these cases and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Duarte, Acting P. J., Mesiwala, J.
[*] Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.