People v. Roehrich CA3 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 3/23/23 P. v. Roehrich 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C096399
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 21CF04974)
    v.
    GERALD ROEHRICH,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appointed counsel for defendant Gerald Roehrich 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
    On January 7, 2022, defendant resolved the case against him by pleading no
    contest to felony grand theft of property from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c))1 and
    admitting he had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, he
    received dismissal of the remaining charge and enhancement. The stipulated factual
    basis for his plea was to be taken from the probation report.
    At a hearing on February 17, 2022, defendant was referred for a determination of
    his suitability/eligibility for mental health diversion.
    At the sentencing hearing on May 19, 2022, defendant withdrew his request for
    mental health diversion, and the trial court elected not to strike defendant’s prior strike
    and stated that even if it could grant probation, it would not. The court then determined
    defendant’s prior convictions were numerous (citing 12 felony and two misdemeanor
    convictions), he had served prior prison sentences, he was on probation when the theft
    was committed, and his prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory.2 The court
    weighed these aggravating circumstances against defendant’s possible mental health and
    substance abuse problems (as well as factors to be considered under § 1170, subd. (b)(6))
    and found imposition of a lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.
    Instead, the court imposed the upper term of six years (three years doubled because of the
    prior strike) with credit for 238 actual days, plus 238 conduct days for a total of 476 days’
    custody credit.
    1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    2 Defendant did not object that some of these findings failed to comply with amendments
    constraining the trial court’s ability to determine factors in aggravation (§ 1170, subd.
    (b)(2)-(3)) and, thus, has forfeited appellate arguments concerning the trial court’s
    noncompliance. (People v. Scott (1994) 
    9 Cal.4th 331
    , 351; People v. Flowers (2022)
    
    81 Cal.App.5th 680
    , 683-684, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276237.)
    2
    Finally, the trial court imposed a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code,
    § 70373), a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8), a $300 restitution fine
    (§ 1202.4), a suspended $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), and a theft
    fine (§ 1202.5) plus penalty assessments totaling $39. Defendant timely appealed and did
    not request a certificate of probable cause.
    DISCUSSION
    Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
    history of the case and requests this court 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/
    EARL, J.
    We concur:
    /s/
    ROBIE, Acting P. J.
    /s/
    HULL, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C096399

Filed Date: 3/23/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/23/2023