People v. Lapp CA3

Filed 8/31/20 P. v. Lapp CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091191

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CR27934)

v.

RYAN DALE LAPP,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Ryan Dale Lapp, filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we will order amending of the December 5, 2019, minute order following sentencing to correct certain items inaccurately reflected therein. Finding no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The People’s May 23, 2019, information charged defendant with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code; count one), grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a); count two), receiving stolen property with a value exceeding $950 (§ 496, subd. (a); count three), vandalism with less than $400 in damage (§ 594, subd. (a); count four), and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466; count five). Thereafter, defendant pleaded no contest to count one in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts, five years of probation, and 180 days in jail. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was that defendant entered a high school with the intent to commit a theft in excess of $400. On December 5, 2019, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea. The court ordered the 180 days to be consecutive to the time he was then serving in San Joaquin County in a different matter. The court further imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 stayed probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 presentence investigation fee (§ 1203.1b), and $9,679.02 in victim restitution. The court awarded defendant two days actual credit plus two days good time credit for a total of four days custody credit. Defendant timely appealed, indicating he would be challenging issues unrelated to his plea.