IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
January 18, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
PAUL SANTOS LOPEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. MF032852A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, J.
P. v. Lopez
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant, Paul Santos Lopez, asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.
On April 9, 2010, despite an order of protection, defendant went to his 66-year-old mother's home and argued with her. As he was leaving, defendant hit his mother on the back of the head; she fell to the ground. Initially, defendant's mother said she was not injured, but later complained of a bump on her head.
Defendant was arrested and charged with elder or dependent adult abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)) and violating a court order (Pen. Code, § 273.6). It was further alleged that defendant had three prior "strike" convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subd. (b) & 667) and served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant pleaded guilty to abuse of an elder or dependent adult and admitted the three prior prison terms alleged. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charge was dismissed and the prior strike allegations were stricken. The court imposed a stipulated term of seven years, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 206 days of presentence credit, consisting of 103 days of custody credit and 103 days of conduct credit.
Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked 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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE, P. J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.