Opinion
2d Crim. No. B231751
12-28-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH EMIL GRAYSHOCK, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 2010008811)
(Ventura County)
Joseph Emil Grayshock appeals a judgment following conviction of possession of a destructive device with the intent to injure a person or damage property. (Pen. Code, § 12303.3.)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.
At a jury trial, the prosecutor presented evidence that Grayshock made an incendiary device commonly known as a Molotov Cocktail and planned to use it at the home of his former girlfriend and her cousin. In a recorded interview, Grayshock admitted to police officers that he made the device from a liquor bottle and gasoline, and planned to throw it at the front door of his former girlfriend's home. Grayshock presented evidence at trial that he has longstanding mental illness and was not taking his prescribed medication at the time he committed the offense.
The jury convicted Grayshock of possession of a destructive device with the intent to injure a person or damage property. (§ 12303.3.) The trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years. It also imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $200 parole revocation restitution fine (stayed), a $40 court security assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45, 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373.) The court awarded Grayshock 669 days of presentence custody credit.
We appointed counsel to represent Grayshock in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues.
On September 20, 2011, we advised Grayshock that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Grayshock's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P.J. We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
David W. Long, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura
Lori E. Kantor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.