1

Filed 4/29/22 P. v. Figueira 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

MICHAEL JOE FIGUEIRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

C094884

(Super. Ct. No. CRF21631)

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Joe Figueira has asked this court to 

review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

The People’s complaint charged defendant with fleeing a peace officer in a motor 

vehicle while driving with a willful or wanton disregard for public safety (Veh. Code, 
2

§ 2800.2; count I);

1

resisting a peace officer in the discharge of his duties (Pen. Code, 

§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count II); driving a motor vehicle without a valid license (§ 12500, 

subd. (a); count III); driving a motor vehicle in darkness without using lights (§ 24250; 

count IV); failing to stop at an intersection with a stop sign (§ 22450, subd. (a); count V); 

and failing to stop at a red light (§ 21453, subd. (a); count VI). The complaint further 

alleged as to count one that defendant had suffered a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 

1170.12) by virtue of his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, 

subd. (a)(1)).

On August 4, 2021, defendant resolved this case by pleading no contest to count

one and admitting the prior strike. In exchange, he would receive the low term of 16 

months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike, and the remaining counts 

would be dismissed. The factual basis for the plea was taken from the pretrial release 

report, which reflected that defendant was contacted in his parked car by a deputy sheriff. 

Defendant told the deputy he was on probation, but rather than complying with the 

deputy’s instructions, defendant fled without headlights, at a high rate of speed, ran a red

light, and failed to stop at two stop signs. The deputy attempted to follow in his patrol 

vehicle with its lights flashing, but ultimately lost sight of defendant and ended the 

pursuit.

On September 3, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the 

plea agreement, awarding him credit for 60 actual days plus 60 conduct days for a total

120 days of conduct credit and requiring that he pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 

§ 1202.4 subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, 

§ 1202.45), a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $40 court 

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.
3

operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $4 EMS air ambulance fee (Gov. Code, 

§ 76000.10, subd. (c)(1)).

Defendant timely appealed, checking the box challenging matters occurring at 

sentencing or after his plea that did not affect the validity of the plea. Defendant also 

completed a request for a certificate of probable cause but did not check the box on the 

notice of appeal form associated with a challenge of the validity of his plea and his 

request for a certificate of probable cause was not ruled upon by the trial court.

DISCUSSION

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

brief that sets forth the relevant 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 counsel of the right 

to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed, but 

to date, has not done so. 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. Consequently, we will affirm the judgment.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 \s\ ,

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 \s\ ,

HULL, J.

 \s\ ,

RENNER, J.