P. v. Mitchell
Filed 11/20/09 P. v. Mitchell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY JAMES MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. | C061685 (Super. Ct. No. CM029490) |
Defendant Danny James Mitchell wrote numerous checks to merchants without having sufficient funds in his checking account. As a result of his failure to pay the entire outstanding balance owed, defendant was arrested and charged. Represented by counsel, defendant pleaded no contest to three counts of fraudulently issuing a check with insufficient funds (Pen. Code, 476a, subd. (a)) having a prior conviction for the same (Pen. Code, 476a, subd. (b)) as alleged in counts 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint, and admitted serving two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)), in exchange for dismissal with a Harvey waiver[1] of all remaining charges, as well as several other cases pending against him.
The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count 5, a concurrent three-year term on count 6, a concurrent three-year term on count 7, plus one consecutive year each for the two prior prison terms, for an aggregate sentence of five years in state prison. The court imposed specified fees and fines, and reserved jurisdiction over the amount of victim restitution to be paid in the present case as well as one of the dismissed cases. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
ROBIE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]People v. Harvey (1979) 29 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).
