Opinion
C086144
07-02-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTONIO REICH, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17FE001108)
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
A felony complaint charged defendant Antonio Reich with being a felon in possession of a firearm (count one; Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), reckless driving (count two; Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a)), and driving on a suspended license (count three; Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged defendant had one strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
After a preliminary hearing and the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the trial court held defendant to answer on counts one and two and dismissed count three. Defendant thereafter pleaded no contest to count one and admitted the strike, in return for the dismissal of the balance of the charges and a sentence of four years in state prison (the midterm on count one doubled). The factual basis for the plea, as recited by the prosecutor, was as follows: "On or about January 17th, 2017, in the county of Sacramento, . . . defendant . . . committed a felony, a violation of Section 29800 [subdivision] (a)(1) of the [P]enal [C]ode, in that he did willfully and unlawfully possess . . . a []9 millimeter semi-automatic handgun, and that he had been convicted of a felony prior to that, . . . dissuading a witness for reporting a crime in violation of 136.1 [subdivision] (b)(1) of the [P]enal [C]ode on or about May 6th, 2009 in Sacramento County. [¶] In addition, that he suffered a prior strike. It's the same exact strike and crime that I mentioned earlier for the basis of the prohibition for possessing a firearm."
The trial court imposed the four-year state prison sentence as agreed in the plea bargain, with 196 days of presentence custody credit (98 actual days & 98 conduct days). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a matching suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Subsequently, the trial court filed an amended abstract of judgment that modified the presentence custody credit award to 200 total days (100 actual days & 100 conduct days).
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. (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/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Hull, J. /s/_________
Murray, J.