Court Opinion

ID: 9889335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-09 17:04:13.157989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:46.363445
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/9/23 P. v. Cox 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C098025

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 21CF04689)

           v.

 RIDGEWAY THOMAS COX III,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant, Ridgeway Thomas Cox, III, asked this court to
conduct an independent review of the record to 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 affirm the judgment.

                             FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
         We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)

                                                             1
         The instant case is one of two cases defendant resolved with a plea bargain on
November 30, 2022.
         In this case, the felony complaint, deemed an information, charged defendant with
two counts of failing to appear with the special allegations he was on his own
recognizance when he committed the offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 1320, subd. (b), 12022.1.)
The parties stipulated the trial court could draw the factual basis for the plea from the
probation report.
         In the second case, upon which the failure to appear charges were based, the
felony complaint alleged defendant made criminal threats, failed to register as an arsonist,
and alleged defendant had a prior strike. (Pen. Code, §§ 422, subd. (a), 457.1, subd. (h),
667, subd. (b)-(j), & 1170.12.) According to the probation report, defendant threatened
to burn down the victim’s house with her inside.
         Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to a single count of
failing to appear in exchange for dismissal of the second count, the enhancements, and
the second case. Upon receipt of the plea, the trial court dismissed the second action and
the special allegations with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
         At sentencing, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of 2 years
and properly confirmed 224 days of credit for time served. The trial court imposed a
$300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation
fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), reserved the amount of restitution, imposed a court
operations assessment of $40 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a conviction assessment of $30
(Gov. Code, § 70373).
         Defendant timely appealed and sought but did not obtain a certificate of probable
cause.

                                              2
                                        DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests 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 error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
       Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

                                        DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                   HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

MESIWALA, J.

                                              3