Opinion
H045156
03-12-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRY ADAIR WRIGHT, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1652709)
Defendant Terry Adair Wright, Jr., pleaded no contest to a count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court dismissed a prior strike conviction (§ 1385) and sentenced him to a total term in prison of 16 months.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On appeal, defendant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel asserts that defendant is transient and could not be informed of counsel's intention to file a Wende brief. We have sent a letter to county jail, which is the address counsel listed for defendant in his Wende brief's proof of service, informing defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The letter was not returned as undeliverable. Thirty days have elapsed, and we have not received a response or any communication from defendant.
Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues. We will provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)
BACKGROUND
Since defendant pleaded no contest to count 1, we derive our facts from the probation officer's report. --------
On December 5, 2016, officers responded to a report of a disturbance involving a weapon. Defendant was determined to be the aggressor and was arrested. He was searched and found to be in possession of a shotgun shell.
On March 9, 2017, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office filed an information charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2). It was further alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).
On May 9, 2017, the jury trial commenced. That same day, defendant entered an open plea of no contest to count 2, possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)).
On May 17, 2017, the trial on count 1 continued, and the victim in the case testified. On direct examination, the victim testified that he lunged toward defendant to attack him. Following this testimony, the court took a short recess. Afterwards, the People moved to dismiss count 1 and the prior serious felony allegation. The court granted the People's motion. Thereafter, defendant admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction.
On June 28, 2017, defendant requested the court exercise its discretion under section 1385 and strike his prior strike conviction. He also requested the court exercise its discretion under section 17, subdivision (b) and reduce count 2 to a misdemeanor. Thereafter, on July 7, 2017, the court exercised its discretion to strike defendant's prior strike conviction but chose not to reduce count 2 to a misdemeanor. The court stated several reasons on the record explaining its decision to strike defendant's strike prior, including the remoteness of the prior strike and the de minimis, nonviolent nature of the current offense. Subsequently, the court sentenced defendant to a total term in prison of 16 months. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Premo, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Elia, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Grover, J.