Opinion
C085724
03-23-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUSTIN RILEY NORRIS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17F2534)
Appointed counsel for defendant Austin Riley Norris has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist 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 description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On May 8, 2017, defendant was charged by criminal complaint with residential robbery in concert (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5/213, subd. (a)--count 1), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)--count 2), first degree residential burglary (§ 459--count 3), and two counts of grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)--counts 4 & 5). The complaint further alleged all five counts were serious felonies (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)), and counts 1 and 3 were violent felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (c)).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On June 28, 2017, defendant entered a plea of no contest to count 1 in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations subject to a Harvey waiver. The parties stipulated to the factual basis to substantiate the plea, summarized in the sheriff's department report as follows: On May 3, 2017, defendant and several others forced their way into a home, held the victim against his will, and stole guns and other items.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. --------
The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to serve the aggravated term of nine years in state prison. The court awarded defendant 167 days of presentence custody credit (146 actual days plus 21 days of conduct credit), and imposed fees and fines, including a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $900 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45); a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court imposed but stayed a $780 fine comprised of a $200 base fine (§ 672), a $200 state penalty assessment (§ 1464, subd. (a)), a $20 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), an $80 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), a $100 state court facilities construction fee (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)(1)), a $140 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)), and a $40 state criminal fine surcharge (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)). The court reserved the matter of victim restitution for further hearing.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not request a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we 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/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /s/_________
DUARTE, J.