Filed 3/15/23 P. v. Duke CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084915 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF016692A) v. MICHAEL D. DUKE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge.

Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael D. Duke asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond.

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND1 On February 8, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant, an inmate in a state prison, with battery on a person not confined (Pen. Code, § 4501.5;2 count 1) and alleged defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).

On June 3, 2022, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted both prior strike allegations, in return for a two-year term, doubled to four years pursuant to the Three Strikes law.

On August 24, 2022, defendant requested to withdraw his plea. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the request.

The same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon four-year term, plus a consecutive six-month term on another case. The court imposed various fines and fees.

On August 30, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal and the trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause.

1 The record on appeal does not contain a factual summary of the crime.

2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2.

DISCUSSION Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

3.