P. v. Thompson

















Filed 1/22/13 P. v. Thompson CA6

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL REPORTS

>





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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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



SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS AARON THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant.

H037994 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F20777)

Pursuant to a
negotiated plea agreement, defendant Dennis Aaron Thompson pleaded no contest
to one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594) and admitted one prison
prior (id. § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant under
Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), to the aggravated term of three years
for the felony and a consecutive one year for the prior conviction allegation;
260 days were to be served in county jail.
Defendant was then to be released to a mental health program, the
remainder of his sentence to be served under community supervision.

We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent defendant in this
court. Appointed counsel filed an
opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific
issues. We notified defendant of his href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">right to submit written argument in his
own behalf within 30 days. The 30 days
have expired and we have received no written argument from defendant.

I.
Factual and Procedural Backgroundhref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]

On
April 22, 2011, victim Rebecca Coelho heard a noise coming from her
garage. When she went to check she saw a
man in her car rummaging in the center console.
She immediately telephoned the sheriff.
By the time Deputy Sheriff Nicholas Man arrived, the intruder had
fled. Man observed that the side door to
the garage appeared to have been forced open with a pickax. The victim did not find anything missing from
her car. Defendant was detained nearby
and identified by the victim.

The
information charged defendant with one count of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)
and alleged four prison priors (id.
667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant’s attorney
declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence. Accordingly, proceedings were suspended and
the court ordered defendant to be examined by a psychologist. (Id.
§ 1368.) The psychologist determined
that defendant was then competent to stand trial but could decompensate under
stress such as that occasioned by a jury trial.


The
trial court found defendant to be competent and criminal proceedings
resumed. The district attorney amended
the information to add one count of felony vandalism. On January 6, 2012, defendant pleaded no
contest to the vandalism count and admitted the prison priors. The court dismissed the burglary count,
struck the remaining prison priors in the interests
of justice, and sentenced defendant as indicated above. The court stated that defendant would receive
conduct credits that “the jail will calculate.”
On June 4, 2012, the trial court amended its January 6 order “to reflect
the defendant had earned 130 good time/work time credits.” The court amended the order again on
September 12, 2012 to reflect conduct credits of 260 days pursuant to Penal
Code section 4019.

II.
Discussion

Defendant
has not obtained a certificate of probable
cause, which is required by Penal Code section 1237.5 when a defendant
seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty or no contest
plea. The certificate is not required
when the notice of appeal states, as this one does, that the appeal is based
upon the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect
the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Accordingly,
we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon grounds for appeal arising after entry of
the plea. Having done so, we conclude
that there is no arguable issue on appeal.


III.
Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.







Premo, Acting P.J.





WE CONCUR:







Mihara, J.







Márquez, J.