People v. Rowley CA3

Filed 12/10/21 P. v. Rowley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093342

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CF04032)

v.

WILLIAM MICHAEL ROWLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant William Michael Rowley has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, 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, 124.)

1

I. BACKGROUND In August 2017, defendant was staying with his father. The two got into an argument over how long defendant could stay, and defendant hit the father several times with his hands and damaged the bathroom door. Police arrived but left at the father’s request because it seemed to be making defendant more agitated. Approximately two hours later, the father called police again, saying defendant would not stop hitting him. When officers arrived, defendant resisted arrest and threatened an officer with a machete. Defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a)—count 1),1 misdemeanor battery (§ 242—count 2), vandalism causing more than $400 damage (§ 594—count 3), and misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)— count 4). With respect to count 1, it was further alleged defendant had personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) In September 2017, defendant pled guilty to counts 3 and 4. The remaining charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.2 In November 2017, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for 36 months. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a corresponding $300 probation revocation fine (suspended unless probation is revoked) (§ 1202.44), an $80 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $60 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70303), a $10 theft fine (§ 1202.5) plus surcharges and assessments of $29 (§§ 1465.7, 1464; Gov. Code, §§ 70372, subd. (a), 76000, 76104.6, 76104.7), and a $25 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550, subd. (c)). Petitions alleging defendant violated his probation and requesting defendant’s probation be revoked were filed in March 2018, December 2018, July 2019, January