Filed 7/14/26 P. v. Dollar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Butte)
THE PEOPLE, C103954
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 25CF01245)
v.
MICHAEL LESLIE DOLLAR, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Leslie Dollar, Jr., filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of this 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 errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2025, police arrested defendant after he posted multiple threatening
or intimidating social media posts about the victim, despite being served with a “No
Contact” restraining order. Defendant also previously threatened the victim via
voicemail. The People charged defendant with felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9,
subd. (a)) and misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations court order (id., § 273.6,
subd. (a)). The People alleged a prior strike conviction.
1
Defendant ultimately pled no contest to stalking. As part of his plea agreement,
defendant waived his right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances and agreed that
the trial court could find aggravating circumstances based on the probation report. At
sentencing, the trial court found true six aggravating circumstances and concluded that
the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The court
sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal without requesting a certificate of
probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history 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 his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the
date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3