Court Opinion

ID: 9369048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 18:03:42.450887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.261232
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Bartos 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Placer)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096370

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 62-183837)

           v.

 HARRY DANIEL BARTOS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Harry Daniel Bartos has asked this court to
conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding none, we will affirm
the judgment.
         We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

                                                             1
                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
           Defendant made threatening social media posts and calls to the victim, in violation
of a domestic violence restraining order. Defendant was charged with stalking (Pen.
Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)),1 criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), misdemeanor disobeying a
domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), misdemeanor domestic violence contempt
of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)(A)), and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd.
(a)(1)).
           Defendant made several Marsden2 motions; the trial court held hearings on each
motion and denied each.
           Defendant then entered into a stipulated plea agreement to felony stalking in
exchange for four years’ probation and a maximum of 270 days in jail.
           On May 12, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years of formal
probation and 270 days in jail in accordance with the plea agreement.
                                         DISCUSSION
           Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
           We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2   People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

                                                2
                                  DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                               /s/
                                           EARL, J.

We concur:

    /s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

   /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                       3