Court Opinion

ID: 9896197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 19:03:50.091057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:14.989326
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Black 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                      (El Dorado)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097618

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 22CR1295)

           v.

 BRANDON GARRET BLACK,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Garret Black 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         Defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) and it
was also alleged defendant had a prior strike. On August 9, 2022, the trial court found

                                                             1
defendant competent to stand trial. On October 10, 2022, the trial court granted
defendant’s request to represent himself.
          At defendant’s trial, a hotel manager testified to calling police because she saw
defendant putting a candle to a hotel room’s door. Police officers testified that when they
arrived, they saw he had a knife in a sheath on his hip. One officer told defendant he was
removing the knife for their safety, defendant appeared to reach for the knife, and then
the officers tried to detain defendant while defendant wrestled and struggled with the
officers. One of the officers had to use his Taser on defendant multiple times before they
were able to eventually arrest him.
          The jury found defendant guilty of resisting an executive officer. The trial court
found defendant’s prior strike and several sentencing enhancements true beyond a
reasonable doubt.
          On December 19, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss his
strike and sentenced him to two years (midterm), doubled to four years for the prior
strike.
                                         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. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the
opening brief. More than 30 days have 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.

                                                2
                                  DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                \s\     ,
                                           Krause, J.

We concur:

     \s\                 ,
Robie, Acting P. J.

     \s\                 ,
Mauro, J.

                                       3