Court Opinion

ID: 9554430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 21:04:08.047363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:42.284765
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/8/23 P. v. Warmack 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096155

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. 20CF04660,
                                                                                         21CF01810)
           v.

 MICHAEL WARMACK,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Warmack filed an opening brief that sets
forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant,
we will affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       During a traffic stop, a law enforcement officer found “several large bags of
marijuana filling the backseat” of a vehicle defendant was in along with another person.
The officer also found “large amounts of cash, a pay-owe sheet[,] and methamphetamine
packaged for sale.” After conducting a records check, the officer learned neither
defendant nor the other individual had a valid driver’s license. The officer arrested
defendant and the People subsequently charged him in Butte County Superior Court case
No. 20CF04660 (case No. 660) with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11378), transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11379, subd. (a)), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359,
subd. (b)). On November 12, 2020, defendant pled not guilty; he was released on his
own recognizance and ordered to appear for the preliminary hearing.
       On April 6, 2021, in Butte County Superior Court case No. 21CF01810 (case
No. 810), the People charged defendant with failing to appear after being released on his
own recognizance. (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b).) Defendant was later remanded into
custody and bail was reinstated on July 29, 2021.
       Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale in case
No. 660 and failing to appear in case No. 810, and admitted committing the crime while
out on his own recognizance. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the parties agreed to
dismiss the remaining charges and allegations in case Nos. 660 and 810, as well as Butte
County Superior Court case No. 21CF03242. The parties also agreed the probation
report provided the factual basis for the plea.
       The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in case
No. 660 and a consecutive term of eight months in case No. 810. The court ordered
defendant to serve 180 days in “county prison” and the remaining term on mandatory
supervision. The court awarded defendant 20 days of custody credit and ordered him to

                                              2
pay various fines and fees. Defendant filed a notice of appeal without a certificate of
probable cause.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks this court to review the record and 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.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the
judgment.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /s/
                                                 BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

   /s/
DUARTE, Acting P. J.

    /s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                             3