People v. Hair CA5 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/23/23 P. v. Hair 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
F084843
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. BF174717A)
v.
ROBERT HAIR, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT *
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M.
Humphrey, Judge.
Deanna L. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Poochigian, A.P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Hair 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. Defendant did not respond. Finding no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2018, defendant argued with his employer, claiming the
employer owed him money for some work. During the argument, defendant displayed a
handgun and threatened to shoot the employer. Then defendant got in his car and left the
property.
On March 11, 2019, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information
charging defendant with criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422;1 count 1) and misdemeanor
brandishing a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(2); count 2).
On October 13, 2020, the trial court granted defendant pretrial mental health
diversion pursuant to section 1001.36.
On October 29, 2021, the trial court found defendant was not in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the diversion program. The court reinstated criminal
proceedings.
On July 8, 2022, defendant pled no contest to count 1 in return for two years of
probation with 180 days in county jail.
On August 23, 2022, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted
defendant probation for two years with 180 days in jail. The court awarded custody
credits and imposed various fines and fees.
On August 23, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2.
DISCUSSION
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3.