Filed 1/21/20 P. v. Deloney 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CECIL DUPRI DESHON DELONEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

F079352

(Super. Ct. No. 17CR-05270)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Cecil Dupri Deshon Deloney 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. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2017, defendant robbed a dollar store, threatening the manager with a knife. He had robbed the same store in the past. He was found with store merchandise, methamphetamine, and a smoking pipe.

On August 24, 2017, defendant was charged with three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 1, 2 & 4), two counts of misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5; counts 3 & 5), misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377; count 6), and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count 7). As to the three robbery counts, it was further alleged defendant personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).

On September 14, 2017, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency. Criminal proceedings were suspended. On October 17, 2017, proceedings were reinstated.

On May 14, 2018, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the deadly weapon allegation in exchange for probation, including a two-year residential treatment program, and dismissal of the remaining charges. The trial court imposed the upper term of five years in prison on count 1, plus one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. The court suspended execution of sentence and granted four years’ probation with the condition that defendant complete the treatment program. The court advised defendant he would go to prison for six years if he left the residential treatment program for any reason.

On November 15, 2018, defendant began the residential treatment program, but he left on January 25, 2019, and failed to report to court or probation. The trial court thereafter revoked his probation. On March 10, 2019, defendant was arrested on a warrant and new charges of misdemeanor false identification to an officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)(1)) and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). On April 8, 2019, the trial court found defendant in violation of his probation.

On May 20, 2019, the trial court terminated probation and ordered the previously suspended six-year prison term to be executed.

The same day, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

On July 26, 2019, appointed appellate counsel filed a motion with the trial court to correct credits and the restitution fine. The court granted the motion as to the credits, awarding the requested additional credits, but denied the motion as to the restitution fine. The court filed an amended abstract of judgment.

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

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.