Opinion
C085975
05-07-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD LEE NEILSON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17CF01131, 17CF1132)
Appointed counsel for defendant Donald Lee Neilson asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief summary of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 110, 124.)
On March 14, 2017, two felony complaints were filed against defendant. In case No. 17CF01131, defendant was charged with fleeing a pursuing police officer's vehicle while driving recklessly (count 1; Veh. Code, § 2800.2); unlawful driving or taking of a motor vehicle (count 2; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle (count 3; Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (count 4; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). In case No. 17CF01132, defendant was charged with grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On April 13, 2017, defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 in case No. 17CF01131 and to misdemeanor theft in case No. 17CF01132, in return for the dismissal of the remaining charges with a Harvey waiver and a maximum state prison sentence of three years. The parties stipulated the factual basis for the plea could be taken from the probation report.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. --------
In case No. 17CF01131, a California Highway Patrol officer spotted defendant riding a motorcycle in the opposite direction, traveling at a high rate of speed and not wearing a helmet. The officer made a U-turn and activated his vehicle's lights and siren. Defendant fled, reaching a speed of approximately 90 miles per hour. Another officer joined the chase, whereupon defendant stopped. The motorcycle was later determined to be stolen from D.S.
In case No. 17CF01132, L.T. reported to a Butte County Sheriff's Deputy that his wood splitter had been stolen from his residence and he believed defendant had done it. Defendant later admitted doing so.
On May 11, 2017, the trial court found that a factual basis for the pleas in both cases existed, suspended imposition of sentence, and granted defendant formal probation for three years. The court ordered defendant to serve 210 days in county jail, with 62 days of presentence custody credit and 62 days of conduct credit. The court imposed an aggregate restitution fine of $450 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), consisting of $300 in case No. 17CF01131 and $150 in case No. 17CF01132, and a suspended probation revocation fine in the same amount; an $854 base fine on count 1 in case No. 17CF01131 ($200 pursuant to § 627, plus penalty assessments); and a $39 theft fine in case No. 17CF01132 (§ 1202.5). The court also imposed a $320 victim restitution civil fine as to D.S. in case No. 17CF01131 and reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution as to L.T. in case No. 17CF01132. The court imposed probation supervision fees for 36 months at $164 per month (§ 1203.1, subd. (b)). Lastly, the court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court found defendant had no ability to pay the presentence investigation report fee or the public defender fee.
On November 2, 2017, following a restitution modification hearing in case No. 17CF01131, the trial court increased the victim restitution order in that case to $5,318.
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. (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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
MAURO, J.