Court Opinion

ID: 9379636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 21:02:14.18831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.710650
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/23 P. v. Duke CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F084915
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. DF016692A)
                    v.

    MICHAEL D. DUKE,                                                                      OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf,
Judge.
         Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Michael D. Duke asked this court to review the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond.
Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant,
we affirm.
                                     BACKGROUND1
       On February 8, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant, an
inmate in a state prison, with battery on a person not confined (Pen. Code, § 4501.5;2
count 1) and alleged defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions within the
meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).
       On June 3, 2022, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted both prior
strike allegations, in return for a two-year term, doubled to four years pursuant to the
Three Strikes law.
       On August 24, 2022, defendant requested to withdraw his plea. Following a
hearing, the trial court denied the request.
       The same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon four-year
term, plus a consecutive six-month term on another case. The court imposed various
fines and fees.
       On August 30, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal and the trial court granted
his request for a certificate of probable cause.

1      The record on appeal does not contain a factual summary of the crime.
2      All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                               2.
                                     DISCUSSION
      Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                     DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                            3.