People v. Hightower CA3 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/24/14 P. v. Hightower 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                 C076680
    v.                                                                             (Super. Ct. No.
    CRF140000132)
    DUSK JEFFERSON HIGHTOWER,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appointed counsel for defendant Dusk Jefferson Hightower 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.
    1
    I
    On March 10, 2014, defendant struck Richard S. on the left side of his face with a
    softball sized rock. As a result of the attack, Richard S. sustained $8,159.54 in damages,
    including $7,879 in medical expenses and $280 in damages to a watch and leather jacket.
    Defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great
    bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) The trial court placed defendant on
    probation for four years with various terms and conditions, including payment of
    $8,159.54 in victim restitution. Defendant did not obtain 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.
    Defendant filed a supplemental brief (A) asserting that his sentence is inconsistent with
    the plea agreement, and (B) challenging the restitution award.
    A
    Defendant claims he was to be sentenced to three years of probation plus an
    additional year if he violated the terms of his Cruz1 waiver. He says the trial court
    found defendant did not violate his Cruz waiver but nonetheless placed him on four
    years of probation. Defendant misreads the plea agreement.
    The written plea agreement signed and initialed by defendant stated he could
    receive from three to five years of probation. The agreement added that if defendant
    complied with the terms of his Cruz waiver, his plea to criminal threats in another case
    and his admission of an on-bail enhancement would be withdrawn, those counts would
    1 People v. Cruz (1988) 
    44 Cal.3d 1247
     (Cruz).
    2
    be dismissed, and defendant would be granted probation. But the agreement explained
    that if defendant did not comply with the terms of the Cruz waiver, the “ ‘lid’ of no
    immediate state prison” would be lifted and defendant could be sentenced to six years
    eight months in prison.
    The sentence imposed by the trial court was consistent with the plea agreement,
    and defendant’s contention lacks merit.
    B
    Defendant also challenges the restitution award. He claims his trial counsel
    did not inform him that he could contest the restitution award, but he does contest it.
    Defendant adds that the victim did not produce any “hard evidence” of damages.
    In addition, defendant’s trial counsel said he would “work on” obtaining medical
    records but never produced anything.
    Defendant’s contentions are not supported by the record. 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.
    MAURO                     , J.
    We concur:
    HULL                     , Acting P. J.
    ROBIE                    , J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C076680

Filed Date: 12/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021