IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
November 7, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
PATRICK AARON CARVER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM032609 & CM033193)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Carver
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Patrick Aaron Carver pled no contest to felony possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1))*fn1 and a misdemeanor charge of resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Defendant also admitted a failure to appear while on bail. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years and eight months in state prison.
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 offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
In April 2010, officers were executing a search warrant for defendant's person and residence. Defendant refused to be detained. A physical altercation ensued, during which an officer was injured. Ultimately, defendant was subdued, detained and searched. A stolen, loaded handgun was found in the waistband of his pants, a smoking device and a baggie of 1.43 grams of methamphetamine were found in his pocket. In his car, officers found a digital scale. At his home, officers found more methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, another gun and ammunition.
Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of a smoking device. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a).) It was further alleged defendant was personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). He was released on bail and failed to appear at his next ordered court date. Accordingly, additional charges were brought charging defendant with failure to appear while on bail (§ 1320.5).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon, resisting an officer and failing to appear while on bail and admitted a prior strike conviction. Defendant was advised his maximum term would be six years and eight months in prison. The remaining charges against defendant were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.*fn2
Consistent with the plea, defendant was sentenced to the upper term of six years for the possession of a firearm, one year concurrent for resisting an officer and a subordinate term of one-third the midterm for the failure to appear. The court imposed a restitution fund fine of $200 and reserved jurisdiction on direct victim restitution. Various other fines and fees were imposed. Defendant was awarded a total of 201 days' presentence custody credits.*fn3 Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record to determine whether there were 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. We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ , J. HOCH , J.