Court Opinion

ID: 9942737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 20:04:16.466051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:41.788141
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/24 P. v. Fox 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                       (Tehama)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C097901

           v.                                                                   (Super. Ct. Nos. 17CR000223,
                                                                                        19CR000342)
 WILLIAM GENE FOX,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant William Gene Fox 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 judgments.
                                                             I
         In July 2018, defendant agreed in Tehama County case No. 17CR000223 (the fire
case) to an open plea deal in which he pleaded guilty to criminal threats (Pen. Code,
§ 422, subd. (a))1 and unlawfully causing a fire on a structure or forest land (§ 452,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
subd. (c)) in exchange for dismissal of other counts with a Harvey waiver.2 The parties
stipulated that a Cal Fire report and preliminary hearing transcript provided the factual
basis for the plea. Those documents, summarized in the probation report, indicated that
defendant had a dispute with squatters on his property, threatened and assaulted one of
them, and lit the area on fire.
       The Probation Department recommended formal probation in light of the
circumstances on defendant’s own property and because defendant had been diagnosed
with post-traumatic stress disorder from witnessing his father’s murder as a child.
Although defendant would otherwise have been ineligible for probation absent an
unusual circumstance finding due to his prior felony convictions, the trial court found
unusual circumstances. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed
defendant on formal probation for five years with various terms and conditions, including
participation in Behavioral Health Court. It imposed various fines and assessments and
awarded one day of presentence credit with no additional jail time. In February 2019,
probation filed a petition to revoke probation in the fire case, alleging that defendant
tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana and possessed ammunition.
       In April 2019, defendant agreed to an open plea deal in Tehama County case
No. 19CR000342 (the ammunition case) in which he pleaded guilty to unlawful
possession of ammunition as a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) in exchange for dismissal of
a prior strike conviction allegation. The parties stipulated that probation reports provided
the factual basis for the plea. According to those reports, while conducting a probation
search of defendant’s property in February 2019, probation officers found a backpack in
plain view containing a box of 68 live rounds of .380-caliber ammunition in the trailer
where defendant lived. Defendant also waived a probation violation hearing in the fire

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

                                              2
case, admitted the alleged probation violations, and stipulated to a factual basis. The trial
court found him in violation of probation.
       In the fire case, the trial court imposed the upper term of three years for the
criminal threats, plus a consecutive eight months (one-third the midterm) on the two
counts of unlawfully causing a fire. In the ammunition case, the trial court imposed a
consecutive eight months (one-third the midterm) for unlawful ammunition possession.
Finding unusual circumstances in both cases, the trial court suspended execution of
sentence, placed defendant on formal probation for five years under various terms and
conditions, including participation in the Behavioral Health Court program. It ordered
defendant to serve 180 days in county jail in the fire case, with 216 days of presentence
credit (108 actual days and 108 conduct days), and it ordered a consecutive 90 days in jail
in the ammunition case with no credit.
       In July 2019, the parties agreed the trial court should remove defendant from the
Behavioral Health Court program, and the trial court placed defendant on formal
probation for five years with modified terms. In December 2020, the trial court extended
probation to May 2024 in both cases under the same terms and conditions as previously
imposed.
       In January 2021, probation filed a second petition for revocation of probation in
the fire case and a first petition to revoke probation in the ammunition case, each alleging
that defendant battered his former girlfriend.
       In Tehama County case No. 20CR3062 (the battery case), a jury found defendant
guilty of battery of a cohabitant or girlfriend (§ 243, subd. (e)). The trial court separately
found defendant in violation of probation.
       In January 2023, the trial court revoked, terminated, and declined to reinstate
probation in the fire and ammunition cases. For the fire, ammunition, and battery cases,
it imposed an aggregate sentence of four years in state prison. In the fire case, it imposed
the middle term of two years in state prison for the criminal threats conviction, plus

                                              3
consecutive 8-month terms (one-third the midterm) for the two unlawful burning
convictions. It imposed various fines and assessments and awarded defendant 296 days
of presentence credit (148 actual and 148 conduct). In the ammunition case, it imposed a
consecutive 8-month term (one-third the midterm) for unlawful ammunition possession.
It also imposed various fines and assessments. And in the battery case, the trial court
imposed a concurrent one-year term for misdemeanor battery of a spouse or cohabitant.
It imposed two assessments.
                                              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 judgments in Tehama County case Nos. 17CR000223 and 19CR000342
are affirmed.

                                                      /S/
                                                   MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

    /S/
MESIWALA, J.

                                              4