People v. Torres

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD ANTHONY TORRES, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

Date published: Aug 8, 2012

C069631 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2012)

Opinion

C069631 Super. Ct. No. CM034297

08-08-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD ANTHONY TORRES, Defendant and Appellant.

HULL

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by People v. Wende, we 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.)

Defendant Edward Anthony Torres was incarcerated in Butte County Jail. He placed Correctional Officer Moffitt in a choke hold, Moffitt's knee hit the ground and was injured. Defendant pleaded no contest to a felony battery upon an officer. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (c); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In a separate case, defendant pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery. (§ 243, subd. (e)(1).) Defendant was also found in violation of his probation in a third case. The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years. The court imposed a restitution fund fine of $600 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a security surcharge of $80 (§ 1465.8), a conviction assessment fee of $60 (Gov. Code, § 70373), a public defender fee of $420 (§ 987.8) and a presentence investigation report fee of $736. He was awarded presentence custody credits of 406 days.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HULL, Acting P. J. We concur:

MAURO, J.

HOCH, J.