Filed 1/27/20 P. v. Nattrass 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT ANTHONY NATTRASS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C088333

(Super. Ct. No. P18CRF0197)

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Anthony Nattrass asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant’s son, Nicholas, testified he and his father worked at Natar Singh’s liquor store and were paid “under the table” with food, alcohol, and tobacco. Singh denied this claim and testified defendant was a longtime customer of the store. In either event, one afternoon while Nicholas was in the stockroom of the store, defendant came to the store intoxicated. He asked Singh for alcohol and Singh refused. Singh escorted defendant out of the store. When they reached the parking lot, defendant hit Singh in the face. Singh fell to the ground and hit his head. Singh lost consciousness for a few minutes, ultimately lost seven teeth, and sustained an injury to his arm which required physical therapy and continuing work limitations. Officer Ronald Cannon responded to the scene. He asked defendant to sit on the curb, but defendant walked away, yelling profanities. As Cannon spoke with Singh, defendant hopped a fence and began running away. Cannon challenged defendant to return. Defendant came back close enough to speak with Cannon, but did not return fully because he did not want to be arrested.

Defendant was charged with assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), with a special allegation of personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).

Defendant pleaded no contest to resisting a peace officer. Following trial, a jury found defendant guilty of the remaining assault charge, and found true the special allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years on the assault charge, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and a concurrent term of six months on the resisting a peace officer charge. The trial court awarded defendant 171 days of presentence custody credits, and imposed various fines and fees.

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we 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 the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no such communication from defendant.

We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

RAYE, P. J.

We concur:

/s/

HULL, J.

/s/

MAURO, J.