1

Filed 5/25/21 P. v. Sherman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TROY THEOSIUS SHERMAN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C092599

(Super. Ct. No. CRF19-00895)

Appointed counsel for defendant, Troy Theosius Sherman, Jr., filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436.) Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, and finding no arguable 

error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the 

judgment.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People’s felony information charged defendant with dissuading a witness by 

threat or force (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 1)

1 and infliction of injury on a 

cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2). The information further alleged as to both counts 

that defendant had suffered a prior strike (§ 1170.12), and as to count 1, that he had 

suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). 

Defendant pleaded no contest to count 2 in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 

the low term of two years (the upper term of four years if defendant violated his Cruz2

waiver), dismissal of the remaining count, and striking of the enhancement allegations. 

The parties stipulated the factual basis for the plea was embodied in Marysville Police 

Department report No. 1904-2445, and if witnesses were to testify, they would establish 

defendant’s willful infliction of corporal injury on the victim who lived with him and was 

the mother of his child. 

At the July 13, 2020 sentencing hearing, the victim accused the officer who took 

her statement of lying, blamed the incident on her mental health problems, and asked the 

court to delay the proceedings to allow defendant to receive his tax return and set up 

housing for the victim and their children. The court denied the request to delay 

sentencing, but made arrangements to address the victim’s concern. The court then 

imposed a sentence of two years as previously agreed, with 92 days of actual credit plus 

92 days of conduct credit for a total of 184 days of custody credit. The court also 

imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a matching suspended $300 parole 

revocation restitution fine, a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 

conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). All further fines and fees were waived in 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.
3

light of defendant’s indigency and his family’s homelessness. Defendant timely appealed 

and was granted a certificate of probable cause. 

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural 

history of the case and asks 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 counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the 

date 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 errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, and accordingly, 

we will affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 KRAUSE , J.

We concur:

 RAYE , P. J.

 DUARTE , J.