Court Opinion

ID: 9893873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 19:05:46.926495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:52.374345
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/30/23 P. v. Farris 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C098314

           v.                                                                   (Super. Ct. Nos. 21FE011291,
                                                                                        21FE012417)
 CHRISTOPHER FARRIS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Farris 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.
                                                  BACKGROUND
         In case No. 21FE011291 (case No. 291), the prosecution charged defendant
with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800,
subd. (a)(1) -- counts one & five),1 criminal threats (§ 422 -- count four), drawing
or exhibiting a firearm in a rude, angry, or threatening manner (§ 417, subd. (a)(2) --
count six), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a) -- count seven). In case No. 21FE012417

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
(case No. 417), the prosecution charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1) -- count one), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily
injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4) -- count two), and battery (§ 242 -- count three). Both felony
complaints alleged defendant had the same prior serious felony conviction. (§§ 667,
subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
       In case No. 291, defendant pleaded guilty to count one, being a felon in possession
of a firearm. (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1).) As the factual basis for the plea, the prosecutor
stated that on July 2, 2021, defendant committed a felony violation of section 29800,
subdivision (a)(1) “in that he did willfully and unlawfully own or possess a .45-caliber
handgun, which was loaded, and the defendant had been duly and legally convicted of a
prior felony.” In case No. 417, defendant pleaded no contest to count two, assault by
means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, subd. (a)(4).) As the factual
basis for the plea, the prosecutor stated that on June 22, 2021, defendant willfully and
unlawfully committed an assault upon the victim by means of force likely to produce
great bodily injury. The victim had a laceration on his head and blood streaming down
his face. Defendant admitted to a prior serious felony conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i),
1170.12.) The trial court dismissed the balance of the charges.
       Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea, asserting he had been
under the influence of a prescribed muscle relaxant and he did not fully understand the
consequences of his plea. In a supplemental motion to withdraw his plea, he raised his
prior mistaken understanding of section 245, subdivision (a)(4) and his belief in his actual
innocence. Additionally, as he did in his original motion, defendant asserted he did not
gain any advantage in the case as a result of his plea. The trial court denied defendant’s
motions, concluding there was no basis to allow defendant to withdraw his plea.
       In case No. 417, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three
years on count two, doubled to six years for his prior serious felony conviction. In case
No. 291, the court sentenced defendant to a consecutive middle term of eight months on

                                             2
count one (one-third the middle term of two years), doubled to one year four months for
his prior serious felony conviction. Thus, the trial court imposed the agreed upon
aggregate term of seven years four months in prison. The trial court awarded defendant
729 days of presentence credit (365 actual days and 364 conduct days) and waived all
nonmandatory fines and fees.
       Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause.
                                      DISCUSSION
       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.) Counsel advised defendant 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.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                    /S/
                                                 MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
KRAUSE, J.

                                             3