People v. Sweat CA3

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 9, 2023
• Docket: C098384
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 10/9/23 P. v. Sweat CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Lassen) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098384

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 2022- CR0089361) v.

TODD SWEAT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Todd Sweat asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS On August 15, 2008, defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea of violation of Penal Code section 4501.5, battery by a prisoner on a nonconfined person. Defendant

1 was sentenced to the upper term of four years doubled by a prior strike. (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i).) On November 21, 2022, defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the People used a prior prison term to double the sentence, which was invalid under Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) because the term was not completed. However, defendant cited People v. Tenner (1993) 6 Cal.4th 559, which set forth the requirements for imposition of a sentence enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, including proof of defendant’s completion of a prior prison term. (Tenner, at p. 563.) On February 2, 2023, the trial court denied the petition, ruling that defendant did not receive an increased sentence under Penal Code section 667.5 but rather under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by his counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of when the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2 HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

DUARTE, J.

KEITHLEY, J.

 Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution