1 Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Brott CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JOHN WILLIAM BROTT, Defendant and Appellant. A139398
(Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR930342A)

John William Brott (appellant) appeals fro m a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §211 1 ) in one case and to
one count of assault with a d eadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a )(1)) in another case, and the
trial court sentenced him to a total term of si x years in state prison. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 a nd requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was in formed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Havi ng independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require furt her briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND A first amended complaint was filed Sept ember 5, 2012 charging appellant and
co-defendant John Chester Cook with first degree burglary (§ 459, subd. (a)(1), count one), two counts of robbery (§ 211, counts two and five), and assault with a deadly weapon, a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count three). Counts four, six, seven and eight

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 were charged only as to Cook . The enhancements alleged ag ainst appellant were that he personally used a shotgun in th e commission of these offenses. After a doubt as to appellant’s competen cy was declared, two psychiatrists were appointed to examine appellant pursuant to section 1369. Both psychiatrists found appellant incompetent, and bot h recommended he be treated with antipsychotics. The trial court ordered that appellant be placed at Napa State Hospital. When appellant was not transferred to Na pa State Hospital, the trial court issued an order to show cause as to why Napa Stat e Hospital should not be held in contempt for its failure to comply with the court’s or der. Napa State Hospital admitted appellant approximately one week before the scheduled hearing on the order to show cause, which the trial court then vacated. Appellant re mained at Napa State Hospital for 32 days before he was certified competen t pursuant to section 1372 and re turned to the trial court. Shortly thereafter, a settlement was reache d whereby appellant pleaded no contest to one count of second degree robbery, for a maximum sentence of five years in prison, in the instant case, case numbe r CR930342A. A written plea agreement, advisement and waiver of rights was signed and filed in op en court by appellant, his counsel and the prosecutor, and the prosecution agreed to dism iss the remaining counts and enhancements against appellant. In a companion case, case number CR9304 45, appellant admitted to a separate violation of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) for a maximum term of one additional year (one third the middle term) in state prison. At sentencing, defense counsel asked the court to consider the two reports finding appellant incompetent and represented to the court that although appellant had greatly improved since his stay at Napa State Hosp ital, he continued to have periods of incompetency. Counsel requested a 90-day diagnostic evaluati on at Napa State Hospital. Appellant’s mother told the court that appella nt had not been in trouble until he made a suicide attempt by shooting himsel f in the head; he had not been the same ever since. The trial court found appellant was not eligible for probation because appellant had used a deadly weap on and it was not an unusual case that would warrant a grant of3 probation. The court found in aggravati on that the manner in which the crime was committed indicated pla nning and sophistic ation, appellant engage d in violent conduct indicating he was a serious danger to societ y, and his performance on summary probation for his prior conviction had been unsatisfactor y. Appellant’s factors in mitigation were that he had an insignificant record of criminal conduct an d had voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing at an early stage of the proceeding, but the cour t gave those factors minimal weight and indicated that appellant had received a favorable plea bargain. The court sentenced appellant to the up per term of five years in case number CR930342A and a consecutive term of one y ear (one third the middle term) in case number CR930445. The court awarded appellan t 329 days of credits, including 291 days for actual time under section 2900.5 and 15 perc ent conduct credits un der section 2933.1.
The court ordered restitution in the amount of $627 for the robbery and $11,907.13 in the
assault case. The court also ordered re stitution fines, and additional fees and assessments. Appellant filed a notice of appeal only as to case number CR930342A.
Case Number CR930342A 2 On August 23, 2012, Paul Norson was assaulted outside his home by two men wearing black clothing. Cook, who had a handgun, pushed Norson back into his home where he pinned him down in a chair, hit him numerous times with his handgun, and demanded his money. Appella nt, armed with a shotgun, also entered the house and
ransacked it while Cook att acked the victim. Numerous items were taken which were recovered three days later at appella nt’s home, along with a shotgun.
Case Number CR930445 Approximately two months earlier, on June 29, 2012, appellant wa s involved in an
altercation with his former mo ther-in-law who sought to take back patio fu rniture that had been left at his house. Appellant’s es tranged wife, her brother and her mother all showed up for the patio furniture. When appellant did no t answer the front door, they
went on the back deck to take it. Appellant hit his mother-in-law on her finger with a

2 The facts for both case numbers CR9 30342A and CR930445 are taken from the probation report.4 metal shelf standard, causing significant inju ries to her fingers requiring surgery to reattach and repair them. During this same incident, appellant was attacked by his
brother-in-law with a baseball bat the brother had brought to the scene.
D ISCUSSION We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities a nd that no arguable issues exist. (See People v.
Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) There was a factual basis for appellant’s plea, and there is no clear and convincing evidence of good cause to allow appellant to withdraw his plea. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. There was no se ntencing error. There are no issues that require further briefing.
D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

_ ____________ ____________ McGuiness, P.J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Siggins, J.

_____________ ____________ Jenkins, J.