P. v. Hall
Filed 6/20/12 P. v.
Hall 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
MITCHELL ROSS HALL,
Defendant and Appellant.
C069817
(Super.
Ct. No. 11F06009)
This case comes to
us pursuant to
Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436.
title="">[1]
Having reviewed the record as required by 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.)
On August 26, 2011, defendant Mitchell Ross Hall drove
up to the victim and his wife, who were sitting on a curb. Defendant started accusing the victim of
talking to his family and then punched the victim in the face. The victim sustained a facial fracture as a
result of the assault.
Defendant was charged with committing
Code, § 243, subd. (d))
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] with the additional allegation that
he had personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section
1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). On the day
set for trial, defendant entered into a negotiated plea wherein he pled no
contest to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)).
In accordance with the
defendant on formal probation for five years on the condition he serve 180 days
in county jail. The trial court ordered
defendant to pay a $400 restitution fine, a stayed $400 probation revocation
fine, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, a $40 court security fee, and
$45,559 in victim restitution (subject to challenge at a later set restitution
hearing).
Defendant appealed and his request for a
denied. (§ 1237.5.) Thereafter, in response to appellate
counsel’s written request, the trial court corrected an error in the original
calculation of custody credits so as to award defendant 93 actual days and 93
conduct days, for a total of 186 days of custody
credit.
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:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] 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.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Further undesignated statutory references
are to the Penal Code.
