Court Opinion

ID: 9387122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 20:02:33.431153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.555585
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Comminey CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085182
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. DF016715A)
                    v.

    WALTER CHARLES COMMINEY,                                                              OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jerold L.
Turner, Judge. (Retired judge of the Kern County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
         Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Walter Charles Comminey asked this court to
review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant
did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                                     BACKGROUND
       On October 7, 2021, while confined in a state prison, defendant attacked another
inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon.
       On February 10, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with
two counts of possession of a dirk or dagger in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502,
subd. (a);1 counts 1 & 3) and assault with a deadly weapon in a penal institution (§ 4501,
subd. (a); count 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior
“strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i),
1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667,
subd. (a)).
       On July 15, 2022, defendant pled no contest to an amended count for assault by
means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 4501, subd. (b); count 4) and
admitted the prior strike allegation. The remaining counts and allegation were dismissed.
       On August 12, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of
two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The court imposed
various fines and fees.
       On October 24, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted
defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

1      All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2.
                                     DISCUSSION
      Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                     DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                            3.