People v. Clerisse CA4/3

Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Clerisse CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063023

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23HF0416)

JOHN ERNEST CLERISSE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2023, a jury found defendant John Ernest Clerisse guilty of 1 four counts of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)) and one count of 2 violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)). The court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss two of the criminal threats counts but denied the motion as to one of the criminal threats counts. The court also dismissed two of defendant’s prior strikes. The court sentenced defendant to 3 years 8 months in state prison as follows: (1) the upper term of three years for one count of criminal threats; and (2) a consecutive one-third middle term of eight months for the other count of criminal threats. The court stayed sentence on the violation of a protective order count pursuant to section 654. Defendant filed a notice of appeal, and his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified potential issues to assist in our independent review. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and examined the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders. We find no arguable issues on appeal and therefore affirm.