Filed 12/6/19 P. v. Everett 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD ERIC EVERETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

C089051

(Super. Ct. No. 18CF07440)

Appointed counsel for defendant Edward Eric Everett 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

On October 24, 2018, Austin C. was in a park when he heard his car alarm sounding off. Austin went to his car and saw the rear window was broken; defendant was standing about 10 feet away. Defendant was holding a wallet that belonged to Austin’s wife. Several items belonging to Austin were on the ground near his vehicle. Defendant was under the influence of alcohol; he was detained by Austin and others until law enforcement arrived.

On December 4, 2018, defendant confronted his neighbor, Bruce J., and told Bruce he could kill him. Defendant asked Bruce if he wanted defendant to kill him. Defendant threw logs at Bruce: one log hit Bruce in the ribs and another hit Bruce’s car, breaking a window. Defendant then attempted to climb the fence separating him from Bruce. When law enforcement arrived, Bruce told them this was not the first time he had issues with defendant, whom he believed had a drinking problem. The officer believed Bruce to be genuinely afraid of defendant.

The People charged defendant with two felonies and two misdemeanors, including a felony charge for second degree burglary of a vehicle. The People subsequently agreed to reduce the vehicle burglary charge to a misdemeanor; defendant pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor burglary charge along with a charge of making criminal threats. The remaining charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.

The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in state prison for making criminal threats and a concurrent one-year term on the burglary charge. The court also found defendant in violation of his probation in an unrelated matter and terminated his probation accordingly. Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.

II

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. (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 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/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/

RAYE, P. J.

/S/

HULL, J.