Opinion
C084394
11-21-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IVAN SPENCER WILSON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16F6173)
Defendant Ivan Spencer Wilson pleaded no contest to burglary and admitted a prior strike allegation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. Appointed 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 (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
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.)
The parties stipulated that Shasta County Sheriff Department incident report No. 16-21966 was the factual basis of the plea. The facts are taken from the probation report's summary of the incident report.
On June 17, 2016, Daniel S. went to his uncle's cabin in Montgomery Creek and discovered it had been burglarized. Security cameras captured footage of a man and woman entering the cabin in the early morning hours of June 16, 2016, rummaging through the interior and leaving with arms full of items a half hour later. The cabin's owner conducted an inventory and reported $1,895 worth of stolen items, and $500 in damage to the metal frame of the sliding glass door.
Sheriff deputies recognized defendant and Melinda Schriver in the video footage. Schriver initially denied ever going to the cabin, but she later changed her story, saying she had been drunk and was playing a joke on her friends. Defendant told deputies that he had been intoxicated and only remembered being inside the cabin. He felt sorry for the owner and wanted to pay for the stolen items.
An October 2016 complaint charged defendant and Schriver with residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The complaint alleged the offense was a serious and violent felony. (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(18), 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) It further alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In November 2016, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and the complaint was deemed an information.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In February 2017, defendant pleaded no contest to the burglary and admitted the prior strike allegation in return for an eight-year state prison lid and dismissal of the remaining enhancements and various other pending cases. Prior to sentencing, defendant invited the court to strike his prior strike allegation under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The People opposed the request, and the court declined to strike defendant's strike prior.
The prosecution had already dismissed the violent felony allegation under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(21) because defendant committed the burglary offense in an unoccupied residence. --------
The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of four years for the burglary offense, doubled to eight years for the prior strike allegation, for a total term of eight years in state prison. The court granted 90 days of actual custody credit and 90 days of conduct credit for a total of 180 days. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45). The court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $39 crime prevention fee broken down as follows: $10 (§ 1202.5), $10 (§ 1464), $1 (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), $4 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), $5 (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)(1)), $7 (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)), and $2 (§ 1465.7). Restitution was reserved to the victim and to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
Defendant timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
DUARTE, J.