Opinion
C084806
11-30-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOMMY LIAM HELEAN, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. 17CF01243)
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
I. BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated that facts summarized in the probation report formed the factual basis of the plea. --------
On March 16, 2017, while in custody serving a jail term for misdemeanor battery, defendant Tommy Liam Helean came into contact with several deputies who attempted to restrain him. Defendant kicked a deputy in the knee and a fight ensued. Defendant was cut above his eyebrow as deputies attempted to control him by taking him to the ground. Defendant claimed he had HIV and "Hep C" and splattered the deputies with blood. In a probation interview, defendant stated, "I don't have AIDS it was just the heat of the moment."
Defendant entered a plea of no contest to resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) and admitted a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The remaining count (assaulting a custodial officer) and allegations (two more prior prison terms) were dismissed in exchange for defendant's plea.
The court imposed the upper term of three years for the resisting offense plus a consecutive one-year term for the prison prior. The court ordered defendant to serve one year in county prison and the remaining three years on mandatory supervision. The court awarded 39 actual days and 38 conduct days for a total of 77 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
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, supra, 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.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
ROBIE, J.