IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
June 29, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
RANDY SCOTT DONICA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM023021)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Donica
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Randy Scott Donica was convicted of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in 2006. As a result of subsequent violations of probation, he was sentenced to two years in state prison in March 2010.
Defendant's ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
In April 2005, defendant entered the Butte County Superior Courthouse with a kitchen knife strapped to his leg. In February 2006, he pleaded no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in this case (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)) and misdemeanor drug possession in a separate case (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). Defendant was placed on three years of formal probation and ordered to Proposition 36 drug court. Defendant was found in violation of probation numerous times between March 2006 and April 2009. Each time, probation was reinstated or extended.
The trial court found defendant to, again, be in violation of probation in June 2009. However, in July 2009, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and in August 2009, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial. Defendant was sent to Napa State Hospital in September 2009. In January 2010, defendant was determined to be competent to proceed and he chose to proceed in pro. per.
Defendant made and withdrew a motion to vacate the June 2009 order sustaining his probation violation. The trial court denied defendant's application for probation and sentenced him to the midterm of two years in state prison. In addition to various fines and fees, the trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $200 restitution fine and suspended a parole revocation fine in the same amount. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) Defendant was awarded presentence custody credits including 248 actual days, 248 conduct days, and 56 days served within the Department of Mental Health (Napa State Hospital), for a total of 552 days of presentence custody credit, (Pen. Code, § 4019), which resulted in very little remaining incarceration.
Defendant appeals. We appointed appellate counsel for defendant. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel also advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.
On November 15, 2010, defendant requested a 30-day extension of time to file a supplemental brief, which this court granted on November 30, 2010. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no supplemental brief 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: RAYE , P. J. HOCH , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.