Opinion
C086397
08-01-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS LEON ROBERSON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF160002268)
Appointed counsel for defendant Dennis Leon Roberson filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 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).) After reviewing the entire record, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
While incarcerated in the Yuba County jail, defendant used his closed fist to hit another inmate in the mouth. The People charged defendant with battery resulting in great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury that resulted in great bodily injury to the victim (§§ 245, subd. (a)(4), 12022.7, subd. (a)), and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On January 4, 2017, defendant entered a "straight up" no contest plea to assault. As part of the negotiated plea, the People agreed to strike the great bodily injury enhancement and dismiss the remaining charges. Sentencing was continued to allow defendant to complete a six-month residential rehabilitation program. If defendant successfully completed the program, he could withdraw the straight up plea, his sentence would be capped at three years, and the People would not oppose probation. Defendant also admitted to violating his probation and parole in unrelated matters; sentencing on the probation violations also was continued and the court awarded him time served on the parole violation. The court dismissed another, unrelated pending matter with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
Defendant was subsequently discharged from the rehabilitation program but was given the opportunity to enter a new program. Before he entered the new program, while he was out on his own recognizance, defendant used drugs. The court agreed to allow him another chance at rehabilitation provided defendant agreed to waive his custody credits to that point, which totaled 313 days, as well as any conduct days while in rehabilitation. Defendant agreed. Defendant also agreed if he did not complete rehabilitation, he would lose any custody credits earned while in rehabilitation. The People noted this was defendant's last chance.
On November 22, 2017, defendant admitted he failed to complete the rehabilitation program. As a result, the court subsequently sentenced defendant to three years for his assault conviction and, consistent with the plea agreement, dismissed the remaining charges and struck the enhancement allegation. The court also imposed various fines and fees and awarded defendant 117 days of conduct and custody credit.
Defendant appealed without a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: BUTZ, J. MAURO, J.