1

Filed 2/10/16 P. v. Tremaine CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GREGORY STEVEN TREMAINE,

Defendant and Appellant. C077764

(Super. Ct. Nos. CM040514, CM040227)

Appointed counsel for defendant Gregory Steven Tremaine 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 ).) We conclude there is no arguable

error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, there is an

error in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected. A ccordingly , we order a

correction to the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment.2 I

Factual and Procedural Bac kground

On October 26, 2013, defendant was standing in line at a n Oroville Wal

- Mart

when he struck the face and neck of a woman standing next to him. The victim fell to the

ground after the attack

, and her body went limp and motionless for at least one second.

The victim said she “saw stars” after the attack and could not remember whether she lost

consciousness. Following the attack, the victim thought she was losing ti me and had to

relearn tasks like counting numbers. The victim’s son witnessed the attack and became

afraid to go to Wal

- Mart as a result.

On January 4, 2014, defendant brandished a knife at and threatened to kill

members of the Alcoholics Anonymous meeting he was attending. A search of his car

found the kn ife and a pair of metal knuckles.

Defendant ple ade d no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily

injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) 1 and possession of metal knuckles ( § 21810). The

trial court sentenced defendant to serve four yea rs eight months in state prison, ordered

various fines and fees, and awarded 585 days of presentence credit (293 actual and 292

conduct).

Defendant appeals. H is request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

We appointed counsel to represent d efendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

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

determine whether there are 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.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 II

Defendant’s Supplemental Brief

Defendant filed a supplemental brief

. He first asserts he had filed a lawsuit before

“the Hague CMU

- LUU

- 00021” against the Butte County District Attorney and the Butte

C ounty District Attorney’s O ffice for “crimes against humanity

. ” Defendant wishe d to

show a conflict of interest and seek a change of venue. The record contains no

information regarding this lawsuit and defendant did not move to disqualify the

prosecuto r or to change the venue. We conclude d efendant’s contention is forfeited

because he did not raise the issue in the trial court

. ( People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal. 4th

1 082, 1103

- 1104

. )

Next, d efendant attaches a federal search warrant that was executed against him

and his property while the prosecution was pending and asserts the search found evidence

showing a conflict of interest . T he r ecord does not show the search found any evidence

showing a conflict of interest

. Thus, defendant’s assertion is rejected . ( Null v. City of

Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532, 1535

- 1536 [appellant has duty to

affirmatively show any error by an adequate record].)

Defendant also claims the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the district

attorney’s office withheld th e search evidence from him. Since the record does not show

the existence of such evidence , defendant’s claim fails because he has not established

p rejudice. ( People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 1000, 1008.)

III

Error in the Abstract of Judgment

There is an error in the abstract of judgment

. The trial court ordered a $60 court

facilities assessment reflecting the statutory amount of $30 per felo ny conviction (Gov.

Code, § 70373), but the abstract shows a $40 per felony assessment. We order a

correction to the abstract.4

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected

abstract of judgment reflecting a $60 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373)

and to forward a certified cop y of the corrected abstr act to the Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation.

/s/
HOCH , J.

We concur:

/s/
ROBIE , Acting P. J.

/s/
BUTZ

, J.