IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)
April 18, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JARED RUDOLPH GEARY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF101878)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P.J.
P. v. Geary
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
During an argument between defendant Jared Rudolph Geary and his girlfriend, Rosa V., defendant punched Rosa V. in the chest and threw her onto the pavement, then slapped her in the face causing her nose to bleed. Rosa V. attempted to leave, but defendant prevented her from doing so. She eventually escaped and ran to the neighbor's house. When police responded and attempted to put defendant in the back of a patrol car, defendant resisted and a physical altercation ensued until police were able to subdue him and take him into custody.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) as a non-strike offense in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations against him and a stipulated three-year state prison sentence. The court sentenced defendant accordingly, awarded him 344 days' presentence custody credit (172 actual days plus 172 conduct credits pursuant to Pen. Code, § 4019), and imposed specified fees and fines. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ , J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.