P. v.
Filed 6/25/12 P. v.
Campbell CA3
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JEFFREY CAMPBELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
C067677
(Super.
Ct. No. 09F03843)
A jury convicted
defendant Jeffrey Campbell of second
degree murder and found true the allegation that he used a deadly weapon in
committing the offense. (Pen. Code, §§
187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)
found that defendant was in violation of probation in a prior case involving a
conviction for petty theft with a
prior conviction.
The trial court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate state
prison term of 16 years to life (one year for the deadly weapon enhancement
and 15 years to life for murder).
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] The court awarded 666 actual days of
presentence custody credit. The court
imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $10,000 suspended
restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd.
(a)(1)), a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $263.85 main jail
booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and a $28.75 main jail classification fee
(Gov. Code, § 29550.2). The court also
awarded victim restitution in the amount of $7,504.63.
According to the
evidence at trial, defendant, a drug addict, fatally stabbed Frederick Howard,
his dealer, in the early morning hours of May 19, 2009. The
prosecution claimed that defendant killed Howard to avoid paying a $100 debt
and to steal Howard’s money and drugs.
Defendant testified that he killed Howard in self-defense after wresting
away the knife Howard pulled on him.
We appointed
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (
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 that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
RAYE , P. J.
DUARTE , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further undesignated section references are
to the Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] In case No. 07F05412 (the probation case),
the court imposed a two-year concurrent sentence, as well as probation
revocation and parole revocation fines of $200 each.
