People v. Tullis CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/27/23 P. v. Tullis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Colusa)
----
THE PEOPLE, C097786
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR63992)
v.
DAMON RAY TULLIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Damon Ray Tullis 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
reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
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, 124.)
1
I. BACKGROUND
At the time of the charged offenses, defendant was on probation. A semi-
automatic shotgun was found at defendant’s residence during the execution of a search
warrant. He was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen.
Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count I);1 one count of possession of ammunition (§ 30305,
subd. (a)(1)—count II); and receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)
—count III).
On December 19, 2022, defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a
felon. In exchange, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges and defendant agreed
to a maximum sentence of three years. The stipulated factual basis for defendant’s plea
was taken from the probation report. The court denied probation and imposed a sentence
of two years in prison, the middle term. The court granted two actual days of custody
credit. The court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)),
and imposed, but suspended, a parole revocation fine in an equal amount (§ 1202.45).
Finally, the court ordered defendant to pay a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov.
Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed 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
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
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 People v.
Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
DUARTE, Acting P. J.
/S/
HORST, J.*
* Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3