People v. Craft CA3

Filed 5/11/26 P. v. Craft CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba)

THE PEOPLE, C103661 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2500082) v. MATTHEW EDWARD CRAFT, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Edward Craft 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.

BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with injuring a dating partner with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, (f)(1)),1 assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and violating a protective order resulting in physical injury (§ 273.6, subd. (b)). Defendant agreed to plead no contest to all three charges in return for the People agreeing to dismiss all charges against defendant in a separate

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. pending criminal case. Defendant acknowledged that his pleas would establish that he had violated the terms of his probation, which had been granted for an earlier misdemeanor offense.

Defendant stipulated to the factual basis for the plea, pled no contest to the charges, and admitted his prior conviction for injuring a dating partner. After accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court terminated defendant’s probation for the prior misdemeanor offense because of the new convictions. The court then dismissed the separate, pending criminal case in accordance with the plea agreement.

The trial court declined to grant probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of four years in prison for injuring a dating partner with a prior conviction, a concurrent middle term of three years in prison for assault, and a concurrent term of one year in jail for violating a protective order. The court awarded defendant 124 days of custody credit and imposed a $250 domestic violence prevention fee, three court operations fees totaling $120, three conviction assessments totaling $90, a $300 restitution fine, and a suspended $300 parole revocation fine.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing from the sentence or other matters occurring after his pleas that do not affect the validity of the pleas. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

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.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

Our independent review of the record revealed no arguable issue that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ WISEMAN, J. We concur:

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/ ROBIE, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.