Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Super. Ct. No. 1252955 Hurl W. Johnson, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Gomes, J.
K.V. had a dating relationship with appellant, Caris Lynn McDougald. On November 5, 2008, McDougald argued with K.V. at her apartment. During the argument McDougald punched K.V. on the side of the head, choked her, and threatened to kill her. K.V. suffered bruising on her head and a black eye.
On December 4, 2008, the district attorney filed an information charging McDougald with making criminal threats (count 1/Pen. Code, § 422) and battery on a person with whom the defendant has a dating relationship (count 2/Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)). The information also alleged that McDougald had three prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law and five prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (d), 667.5, subd. (b)).
On February 23, 2009, McDougald pled no contest to making criminal threats and admitted one of the prior strike allegations and two prior prison term enhancements in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a stipulated six-year term. After entering his plea, McDougald waived his right to a probation report and agreed to have the court sentence him at that time. The court then imposed the stipulated six-year term: the middle term of two years, doubled to four years because of McDougald’s prior strike conviction, and two one-year prior prison term enhancements.
McDougald’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) McDougald has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.