Filed 1/14/20 P. v. Taylor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Sacramento)

—-

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES EDWARD TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

C089004

(Super. Ct. No. 18FE012772)

Appointed counsel for defendant James Edward Taylor filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, 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, 123-124.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant went to the apartment of a woman he had previously dated, the victim, waited for her to return, grabbed her, and threw her down a flight of stairs. He then hit her in the head and caused her head to make a hole in the drywall of the apartment wall. The victim suffered an injury to her clavicle. Defendant was charged with inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count one), battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count two), and violating a domestic violence protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(4); count three). As to count one, it was further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) and had previously been convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1)). As to count two, it was further alleged that defendant personally inflicted serious bodily injury (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)).

The court denied defendant’s Marsden motions to remove his attorney. Defendant subsequently pleaded no contest to count two, and the remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The court then sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in state prison. The court granted 420 days of custody credit, 210 actual days, and 210 days of conduct credits. The court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $300 and imposed, but suspended, a probation revocation fine in an equal amount. Finally, the court ordered defendant to pay a $30 court facilities assessment and a $40 court operations assessment.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks 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 his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.

Defendant filed a supplemental brief asserting the trial court’s exercise of its discretion was in error and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He does not, however, support the assertions in his brief with citation to legal authority or the appellate record and has forfeited these arguments. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 [“To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.”].) Defendant also did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and provides no explanation of how his claim on appeal falls within an exception to the rule requiring that he obtain one. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-78.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

KRAUSE , J.

We concur:

HULL , Acting P. J.

HOCH , J.