P. v. Mortensen













Filed 9/14/10 P. v.
Mortensen 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(El
Dorado)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL PAUL MORTENSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

C063969 (Super. Ct. No. P09CRF0079)

On February 14, 2009, defendant Daniel
Paul Mortensen and his then girlfriend argued.
During the argument, defendant threw a glass at the victim, followed the
victim and punched her in the arm, took her wallet and her car, blocked a car
belonging to the victim's friend to prevent the victim from leaving, and
threatened to kill her if she called the police.

Defendant entered
a negotiated plea of no contest to dissuading
a witness by threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) and admitted a
strike prior for first degree burglary and a prior felony conviction for
battery against a police officer. Defendant
entered his plea in exchange for a sentencing lid of eight years and the
dismissal of the remaining counts.

The court
sentenced defendant to state prison
for an aggregate term of eight years, that is, the upper term of four years for
the offense, doubled for the strike prior.^[1]

Defendant
appeals. The court denied his request
for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

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 that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.^[2]

DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed.









NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.







We concur:







BUTZ , J.







MAURO , 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

---

id=ftn1>

^[1] On May
25, 2010, the trial court modified the judgment and amended the
abstract of judgment, recalculating defendant's presentence custody credits
(287 actual, 142 conduct, total 429 days).