Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Black CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097618 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR1295) v. BRANDON GARRET BLACK, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Garret Black asked 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 error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) and it was also alleged defendant had a prior strike. On August 9, 2022, the trial court found

defendant competent to stand trial. On October 10, 2022, the trial court granted defendant’s request to represent himself.

At defendant’s trial, a hotel manager testified to calling police because she saw defendant putting a candle to a hotel room’s door. Police officers testified that when they arrived, they saw he had a knife in a sheath on his hip. One officer told defendant he was removing the knife for their safety, defendant appeared to reach for the knife, and then the officers tried to detain defendant while defendant wrestled and struggled with the officers. One of the officers had to use his Taser on defendant multiple times before they were able to eventually arrest him.

The jury found defendant guilty of resisting an executive officer. The trial court found defendant’s prior strike and several sentencing enhancements true beyond a reasonable doubt.

On December 19, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss his strike and sentenced him to two years (midterm), doubled to four years for the prior strike.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

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

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

\s\ , Krause, J.

We concur:

\s\ , Robie, Acting P. J.

\s\ , Mauro, J.