From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thorpe

California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin
Aug 30, 2023
No. C097553 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023)

Opinion

C097553

08-30-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW THORPE, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. No. STKCRFE20220005490)

MAURO, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Thorpe asked this court to review the record and 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.

I

While Richard J. was driving a truck he initiated a lane change. He heard a honk and realized there was a van in his blind spot. Richard returned to his original lane.

The van pulled alongside him and defendant, the van's driver, threatened Richard and spat at the truck's window.

Richard turned onto other streets and the van followed him. Defendant tried to pass Richard, and Richard saw defendant jerk his steering wheel so that his van hit Richard's truck. A witness saw the van hit the truck. Richard was afraid and kept driving. Defendant pulled ahead of Richard, parked, and yelled at Richard, who took photos of defendant and the van's license plate. Richard called 911. An officer with the Stockton Police Department observed damage to Richard's truck.

A jury found defendant guilty of reckless driving. (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to informal probation with various terms and conditions, including that he serve 30 days in county jail with a recommendation for the work project. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $500 fine. (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (c).)

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 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.

We concur: HULL, Acting P. J., HORST, J. [*]

[*] Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. Thorpe

California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin
Aug 30, 2023
No. C097553 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023)
Case details for

People v. Thorpe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW THORPE, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin

Date published: Aug 30, 2023

Citations

No. C097553 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023)