Court Opinion

ID: 9929465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 18:02:46.243791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:25.342151
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Myers 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                      (El Dorado)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C098795

           v.                                                                     (Super. Ct. No. 21CR0203)

 DUSTIN THOMAS MYERS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Dustin Thomas Myers 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                                             I
         On November 18, 2021, South Lake Tahoe Police Department officers responded
to a call about a man yelling at people, and they encountered defendant. He ignored the
officers’ commands, ran away from them, and ran through private yards. He then fought
with the officers and reached for one of their firearms. All three officers involved
sustained injuries.

                                                             1
       A criminal complaint filed November 22, 2021, charged defendant with resisting
an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69 -- counts 1 & 2) and battery on a peace officer
(Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b) -- count 3), and it further alleged that defendant was released
from custody on bail or on his own recognizance when he committed the acts charged in
counts 1 and 2 (Pen. Code, § 12022.1).
       On August 29, 2022, defendant entered a plea of no contest to counts 1 and 2 and
the trial court dismissed count 3 and the on-bail enhancement allegation with a Harvey
waiver. (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) The trial court sentenced
defendant to an aggregate term of two years eight months, consisting of two years on the
count 1 resisting an officer conviction and eight months, one-third the middle term, on
the count 2 resisting an officer conviction. The trial court ordered the sentence served as
a split sentence with one year in county jail and one year eight months on mandatory
community supervision. Because defendant had been in custody for 187 days and had
186 days of presentence credit, the trial court released him to mandatory community
supervision with the balance of his credit to apply toward his supervision term.
       On or about November 3, 2022, the People filed a petition for revocation of
mandatory supervision and defendant admitted to the alleged violations. The trial court
sentenced defendant to 90 days in jail and awarded him two days of presentence credit.
       The People subsequently filed three more petitions for revocation of mandatory
supervision: one on February 6, 2023, alleging that defendant violated Health and Safety
Code sections 11550 [using, or being under the influence of, a controlled substance
without a valid prescription] and 11364, subdivision (a) [possession of controlled
substance paraphernalia]; one on March 3, 2023, alleging that defendant failed to report
to his probation officer; and one on March 14, 2023, alleging that defendant violated
Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) [possession of a controlled
substance without a valid prescription]. The trial court denied defendant’s Marsden
motion (see People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and found that defendant violated

                                             2
his mandatory supervision as alleged in the second, third, and fourth petitions. It
sentenced defendant to 369 days in jail and awarded him 90 days of presentence credit.
The trial court ordered defendant released from custody once he served the balance of his
sentence, 189 days, at which time the mandatory supervision would be terminated.
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal, indicating that his appeal is based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the
plea. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
                                              II
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking 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 the opening brief.
More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
       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.

                                                      /S/
                                                   MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

    /S/
MESIWALA, J.

                                              3