Court Opinion

ID: 9943151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 19:03:41.885327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:15.832297
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Rice 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Sutter)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C097837

           v.
                                                                                          (Super. Ct. Nos.
 TERRELL ALEXANDER RICE,                                                                  CRF210001448,
                                                                                          CRF210000737)
                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Terrell Alexander Rice 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
         In case No. CRF210000737, the People charged defendant with one count
of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).)1 In case
No. CRF210001448, the People charged defendant with two counts of identity theft.
(§ 530.5, subd. (a).)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
       Defendant entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded no contest to receiving
stolen property in case No. CRF210000737 and to one count of identity theft in case
No. CRF210001448. The agreement provided that he would receive concurrent two-year
sentences for each count, dismissal of the remaining count in case No. CRF210001448,
and dismissal of another pending felony case and three misdemeanor cases. The parties
stipulated to a factual basis for the plea: in case No. CRF210000737, defendant received
a vehicle knowing that it was stolen, and in case No. CRF210001448, he fraudulently
obtained the victim’s credit card and used it at Home Depot.
       Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the
middle term of two years for receiving stolen property, plus a concurrent middle term
of two years for identity theft. In each case, the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment
(§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). It ordered
victim restitution and dismissed the balance of charges and the unrelated cases.
       Representing himself, defendant requested resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), seeking a reduction of his sentence to 16 months. The trial court
denied the request, observing that Senate Bill No. 483 pertained to sentence
enhancements that were not part of defendant’s sentence.
       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.

                                              2
                                  DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                              /S/
                                           MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /S/
KRAUSE, J.

                                       3