Opinion
C089336 C089337
02-25-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GAQUAN IVAR DICKSON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 17FE003831, 17FE017107)
Appointed counsel for defendant Gaquan Ivar Dickson has filed an opening brief in defendant's consolidated case on appeal, setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant broke into an inhabited home while in possession of a gun. That same day, he knowingly purchased and drove a stolen vehicle. In case No. 17FE003831 defendant was charged with first degree burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5 subd. (c)(21)), possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)), and the unlawful driving and taking of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant personally used an assault weapon in the commission of the burglary within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (b).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
In a separate incident, defendant entered a restaurant while armed with a handgun and demanded the cashier give him the money in the cash register. In case No. 17FE017107 defendant was charged with second degree robbery. (§ 211.) It was further alleged that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and that he committed the offense while out on bail in violation of section 12022.1.
In a consolidated plea hearing, defendant pleaded no contest to the robbery charge in case No. 17FE017107 and admitted the firearm and on-bail allegations. Defendant then pleaded no contest to all the charges in case No. 17FE003831, and admitted a person was present during the burglary and that defendant possessed a firearm. The agreed-upon sentencing range was 15 years four months to 21 years eight months in state prison.
The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 15 years four months as follows: the low term of two years for the second degree robbery plus 10 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement in case No. 17FE017107; and one-third the midterm, 16 months, for the burglary plus two years for the section 12022.5 enhancement in case No. 17FE003831. The court stayed the sentence for the remaining counts in case No. 17FE003831 pursuant to section 654 and stayed the sentence for the on-bail enhancement in case No. 17FE017107 pursuant to section 1385. The court awarded defendant 109 actual plus 16 conduct credit days, for a total presentence credit of 125 days. The court assessed $600 in restitution fines, $600 in parole revocation fines, $160 in court operations assessments, and $120 in criminal conviction assessments; and ordered restitution in the amount of $150 for the victim in case No. 17FE17107 and $600 for the victim in case No. 17FE003831.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 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 error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Krause, J.