Court Opinion

ID: 9782668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:04:29.030462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:09.098929
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/30/23 P. v. Thorpe 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C097553

           v.                                                                          (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                    STKCRFE20220005490)
 MATTHEW THORPE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Thorpe 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.

                                                             1
                                              I
       While Richard J. was driving a truck he initiated a lane change. He heard a honk
and realized there was a van in his blind spot. Richard returned to his original lane.
The van pulled alongside him and defendant, the van’s driver, threatened Richard and
spat at the truck’s window.
       Richard turned onto other streets and the van followed him. Defendant tried to
pass Richard, and Richard saw defendant jerk his steering wheel so that his van hit
Richard’s truck. A witness saw the van hit the truck. Richard was afraid and kept
driving. Defendant pulled ahead of Richard, parked, and yelled at Richard, who took
photos of defendant and the van’s license plate. Richard called 911. An officer with the
Stockton Police Department observed damage to Richard’s truck.
       A jury found defendant guilty of reckless driving. (Veh. Code, § 23103,
subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to informal probation with various terms
and conditions, including that he serve 30 days in county jail with a recommendation for
the work project. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $500 fine. (Veh. Code,
§ 23103, subd. (c).)
                                              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/
HORST, J.*

* Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              3