P. v. Colbert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/9/13  P. v. Colbert CA

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.   JACK B. COLBERT,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C072435   (Super. Ct. No. 10F05189)

 

 

 

 

Appointed counsel for defendant Jack B. Colbert asked this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal.  (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)  Finding no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

            Because the matter was resolved by
plea and defendant waived referral to the probation department, the facts are
taken from the prosecutor’s statement of the factual basis for the plea.  On August 14, 2010, defendant took, by force and fear, personal
property from the possession and immediate presence of victim Kenneth
Straton.  In so doing, defendant
personally used a firearm. 

            The jury deadlocked and the trial
court declared a mistrial.  Defendant
subsequently pleaded no contest to second
degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c))href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] and admitted that he personally used a
firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).  In exchange, the trial court dismissed, with
a Harvey waiver,href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] a count charging second degree robbery involving
a different victim. 

            The trial court sentenced defendant
to prison for the stipulated middle term of three years plus the low term of
three years for the firearm enhancement, awarded defendant 62 days of custody
credit and nine days of conduct credit, and ordered defendant to pay a $1,200
restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,200 parole revocation fine
(§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and
a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). 

            Defendant obtained a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause. 

II

            Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal.  (>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 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.

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

                                                                                                          MAURO                        , J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                     BLEASE                         , Acting P. J.

 

 

                     ROBIE                            , J.