Court Opinion

ID: 9916354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 20:02:43.221884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:06.511608
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/9/24 P. v. Snedigar 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                        (Nevada)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097643

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. CR0000641)

           v.

 WILLIAM JOHN SNEDIGAR,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant William John Snedigar 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.) After independently examining the record, we shall affirm.
                                               I. BACKGROUND
         In the summer of 2022, defendant vandalized the victim’s car. Defendant slashed
the tires and threw rocks at the car, damaging the windshield and body of the car. The

                                                             1
People charged defendant with maliciously damaging real or personal property valued in
excess of $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and alleged defendant’s prior convictions
were numerous or increasing in seriousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)). A
jury found defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court found true beyond a reasonable
doubt the sentencing enhancement allegation.
       The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to two years and split the term;
defendant would serve eight months under mandatory supervision. The trial court
ordered defendant to pay fines and fees and awarded him 201 days of custody credit. The
trial court issued a restraining order and ordered defendant to participate in an outpatient
treatment program once he completed his sentence.
       Defendant appeals.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. 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. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant.
       Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                              2
                                  III. DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /S/

                                             RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

MESIWALA, J.

                                         3