Opinion
C089648
07-01-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALLAS JAMES MARSH, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19CF02181, 19CF02325)
Appointed counsel for defendant Dallas James Marsh asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Late one night, defendant was playing loud music from his car, yelling for everyone to wake up, and yelling profanities at James R., who had been asleep in his home. The noise woke James up, he turned on his kitchen lights and began to make breakfast as defendant became more aggressive and continued to yell at him. Defendant then went to his car and brought out a knife with a four-inch blade, showed it to James, then sheathed it, made "karate movements," and made a cutting motion with his fingers across his throat. James interpreted that as a threat to cut his throat. Another neighbor heard defendant yelling about a public beheading. This behavior resulted in a criminal complaint filed in case No. 19CF02181 charging defendant with making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422.)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Approximately three weeks later, a Chico police officer was dispatched to James's apartment. The officer was familiar with the apartment, as defendant had made multiple threats, brandished weapons, and created disturbances there. On his way to the apartment, the officer saw defendant driving and went to stop him. Defendant pulled into oncoming traffic and drove away from the officer. The officer turned his lights on and followed defendant. Defendant continued driving at a high rate of speed and committing numerous traffic violations. This conduct resulted in a criminal complaint filed in case No. 19CF02325 charging defendant with a number of counts, including recklessly evading a police officer. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2.)
Some of the other disturbances also resulted in separate criminal complaints. In case No. 19CF02325 defendant was charged with disturbing the peace, after continually banging and slamming things in his apartment, causing the whole building to shake. (§ 415, subd. (2).) In case No. 19CM02300, defendant was also charged with disturbing the peace (§ 415, subd. (2)) after more yelling, slamming doors, and cursing from inside his apartment. In case No. 19CM01085 defendant was charged with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a)) after speeding and swerving while driving on a residential street.
Immediately after the preliminary hearing where he was held to answer, defendant pleaded no contest to making criminal threats and recklessly evading an officer; the remaining charges were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. By virtue of the plea, the trial court also found defendant in violation of probation in case No. 19CM00830.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years eight months consisting of: the upper term of three years on the criminal threats conviction, finding defendant was armed and the crime involved a threat of great bodily injury, and a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the midterm) on the reckless evasion conviction, as well as a concurrent 90-day term and a concurrent six-month term on the probation violations. The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) in each felony case, imposed and suspended an identical parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)), a $40 court assessment fee per conviction (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment fee per conviction (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court did not impose either the presentence investigation report fee or the public defender fee, finding no ability to pay. The trial court also granted defendant a total of 105 days of presentence custody credits.
Defendant also filed a motion to vacate or stay all the fines and fees, pending a hearing on his ability to pay. The trial court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
HOCH, J. /s/_________
RENNER, J.