Opinion
F075062
07-12-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY GENE DOBSON, Defendant and Appellant.
James E. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. BF163823A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Judith K. Dulcich, Judge. James E. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J. --------
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Larry Gene Dobson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. The letter was returned by the post office, marked "return to sender, attempted not known." We resent the letter, but it was returned again by the post office, marked "return to sender, not in custody." We contacted appellate counsel and verified that we had defendant's correct address. We received no communication from defendant. We have reviewed the record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Thus, we affirm,
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
During September 2015 and into January 2016, defendant repeatedly contacted his niece, demanding money and threatening to publicly embarrass her if she did not comply. She was attempting to evict him from an apartment she owned. She believed he could easily get a weapon to use against her.
On June 2, 2016, defendant pled no contest to attempted extortion (Pen. Code, § 524). But he continued calling his niece. She was afraid for her life and obtained a civil restraining order against him.
On June 30, 2016, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant three years' probation with 157 days in jail, and awarded credit for time served. The court imposed various fines and fees. Defendant was ordered not to contact his niece.
Despite the no-contact orders, defendant continued calling his niece, and he was found in violation of probation.
Nevertheless, the contacts continued. Between just November 22 and 25, 2016, defendant called his niece 29 times, both day and night. He told her he knew he was not supposed to be calling her, but he did not care if he went to jail.
On January 10, 2017, the trial court held a contested hearing and found defendant in violation of his probation. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in prison, awarded credits, and imposed various fines and fees.
On January 23, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.