People v. Parcher CA3

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Parcher 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, C097267
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF03856)
v.
JOSEPH DANNIEL PARCHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
In August 2020, defendant Joseph Danniel Parcher locked himself inside the home
of his mother and stepfather in an attempt to resist a “move out” order. When sheriff’s
deputies responded and spoke to defendant, he threatened to shoot them if they tried to
remove him. In an attempt to deescalate the situation, the deputies and the homeowner
left the property. During the ensuing period before his arrest some days later, defendant
threw a metal bed frame through the window of a car parked at the property and made a
number of telephone calls threatening his sister and another person. After his arrest,
1
defendant made several telephone calls from jail threatening his stepfather, violating a
restraining order, and attempting to dissuade him from pursuing a complaint.
Defendant pled no contest to making criminal threats and resisting a peace officer.
The trial court suspended the execution of the sentence and placed defendant on formal
probation for three years. After multiple probation violations, defendant admitted one
violation to revoke his probation. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in
prison for criminal threats and eight months for resisting a peace officer.
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 (1979) 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 of the opening brief. We
granted an extension of time for defendant to file a supplemental brief in propria persona.
The extension expired and we received no communication from defendant. 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.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
HULL, 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