Court Opinion

ID: 9398740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 00:03:43.860631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.973329
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/31/23 P. v. Bates CA1/4
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A166798
 v.
 RONALD ARLEN BATES, JR.                                                (Del Norte County
                                                                        Superior Court No.
           Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                        CRF21-9475)

         Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Ronald Arlen Bates, Jr.
entered a no contest plea to one felony count of assault with force likely to
cause great bodily injury. He was sentenced to the low term of two years in
state prison with credit for having served 88 days in custody, and the court
imposed various fines and fees. The court further ordered defendant to pay
direct restitution of $76.96 to the County of Del Norte, representing the cost
of repairing the county vehicle defendant had damaged.
         Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief asking that we conduct
an independent review of the record for arguable issues—i.e., those that are
not frivolous, as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
Counsel also informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief on
his own behalf, but defendant did not do so.
         Finding no arguable issues, we shall affirm.

                                                               1
                                BACKGROUND
      Defendant was originally charged with one felony count of assault with
a deadly weapon. During the preliminary hearing, a county worker testified
that defendant became enraged by the worker’s advisement that defendant
could not camp on county property in an unlicensed vehicle. Upon hearing
this statement, defendant said, “What are you going to do about it?” and
threw a rock near the worker’s head, breaking the window of the county truck
the worker was driving. After the preliminary hearing, the People filed an
information charging defendant with the same felony count and an additional
misdemeanor count of vandalism.
      Defendant subsequently agreed to plead no contest to an amended
felony count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (instead
of assault with a deadly weapon), in exchange for dismissal of the
misdemeanor vandalism charge and a sentence not to exceed the low term of
two years in state prison.1 As part of the plea deal, defendant agreed that the
court could order restitution and consider the preliminary hearing transcript
as the factual basis for the plea.
      The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report, which
defendant received. The court found defendant to be unsuited for probation
based on defendant’s 18 prior convictions, the increasing severity of his acts
of violence, and his poor performance on multiple prior grants of probation.
The court therefore sentenced defendant to the low term of two years with
custody credits and various fines and fees. The court also ordered restitution

      1
         At the same time and in connection with a separate case, defendant
entered a no contest plea to a misdemeanor count of resisting an executive
officer in violation of Penal Code section 69. That misdemeanor case is not at
issue in this appeal.

                                        2
in the amount of $76.96, representing the cost of repairing the damaged truck
window.
                               DISCUSSION
       Pursuant to Wende, we have conducted an independent review of the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues that merit
discussion. We find none. There was a factual basis for the plea, defendant
was advised of his rights and waived them, the court selected an appropriate
sentence, and the restitution order was supported.
                              DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                          BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.
FINEMAN, J.

People v. Bates (A166798)

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

                                      3