P. v. Hill
Filed 5/28/13 P. v. Hill 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(San
Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
THOMAS ARDELL HILL,
Defendant and Appellant.
C070563
(Super. Ct. No.
SF118617A)
This is an
appeal pursuant to
(Wende).
Defendant
Thomas Ardell Hill and Tessa C. started dating in June 2010. In December 2010 they became engaged. In August 2011 defendant started using
drugs. They went to defendant’s parole
officer, seeking his placement in rehabilitation. Defendant did not go to his rehabilitation class. On August
30, 2011, he was ordered into custody for violating parole and
Tessa ended their relationship. Three
weeks later, defendant was released from custody. He called Tessa at least 20 times a day,
every day for several days, leaving obscene messages, calling her offensive
names, and threatening her and her son.
She told him several times to stop calling. On September
25, 2011, she called the police when the calls did not stop and she
started to fear for her life. Someone
banged on her doors, and defendant admitted to her that it had been he. On September 26,
2011, defendant drove toward her as she was driving her car out of
the driveway. She continued on her way,
and he pulled up to her and shouted that she was “ ‘going to pay for
sending [him] to jail.’ †She felt
scared. When she drove to the police
station, he drove away. On another
occasion when she arrived home in the evening, defendant’s car was parked
nearby. She drove away from her home and
called the police. Defendant left her a
message, saying he had been visiting a neighbor. One Sunday morning in early October 2011,
defendant was standing in her backyard.
She called the police.
Defendant
was convicted of first degree burglary
in 2007 in San Joaquin County.
Defendant
entered a negotiated no contest plea to stalking between September 20, 2011, and October 10, 2011 (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd.
(a)), and admitted a strike prior (the 2007 first degree burglary; Pen. Code,
§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) in exchange for a stipulated four-year
term. The remaining counts (counts 2 and
3, criminal threats) and allegations (another strike prior, a 1991 robbery; two
prior felony convictions; and two prior prison terms) were dismissed on the People’s
motion.
The court
sentenced defendant to state prison
for the stipulated term of four years, that is, the midterm of two years,
doubled for the strike prior. The court
awarded 196 days of presentence custody credit; ordered defendant to pay a
$200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation restitution fine, the latter
stayed pending successful completion of parole: and issued a
January 2022. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd.
(k).)
Defendant
appeals. The trial court granted
defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,
§ 1237.5) but denied his request to recall the sentence.
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
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. 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.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
BLEASE , J.
BUTZ , J.
