1

Filed 2/25/16 P. v. Clark CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Amador)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. QUINTERRIOUS RUSSELL CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant. C078012 (Super. Ct. No. 13

- CR

- 21299)

Appointed counsel for defendant Quinterrious Russell Clark has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 ( Wende ).) Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, 110, 123

- 124.)2

In May 2013, defendant was an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison . C orrectional
O fficers Andrew Purcell and Frank Custino worked the 2:00 p.m. t o 10:00 p.m. shift in
b uildi ng 9 of the prison. Shortly a fter beginning his shift on May 23, 2013, Officer Purcell noticed two inmate clerks in the “ sally port ” which controls entry int o b uilding 9. Defendant, who
was not housed in b uilding 9, was also in the “sally port.” When Officer Purcell approached, defendant said in a very agitated an d angry tone that he needed to speak to
his counselor. Officer Purcell explained th at defendant did not belong in b uilding 9 and would need to obtain either a pass or permission from the control booth officer in order to
see his counselor. Defendant left

. At 2:15 p.m., defendant returned and attempted to enter b uilding 9. Defendant said, again in a very angry and agitated manner, “I’m going to see my fucking
counselor

. . . . I’m going to see him right now.” O fficer Purcell said, “Hey, you don’t

– I just told you the proper procedure how to see your counselor, and you’re sneaking back in.” Concerned for the safety of the counselor and the other inmates, Officer Purcell instructed defendant to “get on the wall” (put his hands on the wall) so Officer Purcell could do a patdown search. Defendant initially complied by facing the wall. However,

a s Officer Purcell began to patdown his upper torso, defe ndant turned around, spun Officer Purcell around, and pushed Officer Purcell into the “sally port.” Off icer Purcell used his body weight to force defendant to the floor and sounded the alarm as he tr ied to handcuff defendant, telling him, “I got to put handcuffs on you. Comply, comply . Do

w hat I tell you. I’m going to put handcuffs on you.” Defendant re sisted by squirming back and forth and keeping his arms apart.
Officer Custino attempted to assist in handcuffing defendant , to no avail

. Counselor Steve Winkler arrived and also attempted to assist , without success. Meanwhile, the control booth officer instructed all other inma tes to get down.3

Correctional Officer Richard Collins came to building 9 from the yard when he heard the alarm go off and found defendant resisting Officer Purcell’s attemp ts to handcuff him and kicking Officer Purcell in the back . Officer Collins struck defendant in
the ankle with a baton and instructed him to stop resisting and comply

. Defendant repositioned his lower body and deliberately kicked Officer Collins twice in the right knee. After each kick, Officer Collins struck defendant in the leg with the baton. Officer Purcell was eventually able to place the ha ndcuffs on defendant. Another officer arrived
and secured defendant’s legs with leg irons

. Defendant was charged by second amended information with battery on a correctional officer (Pen. Code, § 4501.5) 1 and resisting an executive officer ( § 69), both felonies. The information also alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction ( § § 667, subds. (b)

- (j), 117 0.12) and five prior prison terms ( § 667.5, subd. (b)). Following trial, a jury found defendant guilty as charged. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the prior strike and prior prison term allegations true. Prior to sentencing, defens e counsel declared doubt a s to defendant’s mental competency . The trial court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered an evaluation pursuant to s ection 1368.
After later finding defendant competent and reinstituting criminal proceedings, t he trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden , Faretta , and Romero motions, 2 denied probation, and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 14 years four months in state prison, comprised of the upper term of four years, doubled for the prior stri ke, plus eight months, doubled for the prior strike, and five consecutive one

- year terms for each of the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]; and People v. Superior Court ( Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.4

prior prison enhancements. 3 Because defendant was a Mule Creek State Prison inmate at the time of his current crimes , the court found he was not entit led to any presentence custody credit. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine ( § 1202.4 , subd. (b) ), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine ( § 1202.45) stayed pending successful completion of parole, an $80 court security fee ( § 1465.8), and a $60 c riminal assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to Wende , supr a , 25 Cal. 3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. 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.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

We concur:

HULL , J.

BUTZ , J.

3 The trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss pending case No. 13

- CR

- 2129 8 in the interest of justice. That case is not part of this appeal.