P. v. Glass CA5

Filed 3/4/13 P. v. Glass 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F064256

v. (Super. Ct. No. DF9942A)

DONALD GLASS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Deborah Prucha, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Peña, J.

It was alleged in an information filed September 16, 2010, that appellant, Donald Glass, committed violations of Penal Code sections 4501.51 (battery on a nonprisoner by a prisoner) and 69 (resisting an executive officer), and that appellant had suffered a “strike.”2 The matter proceeded to jury trial, and during trial the court dismissed count 2 on the motion of the district attorney. On November 16, 2011, the court declared a mistrial after being informed by the foreperson of the jury that the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On December 21, 2011, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the information was amended to add a charge of violating section 69; appellant pled no contest to that charge and admitted the strike allegation; and the court dismissed the section 4501.5 charge, struck appellant’s strike, and imposed a prison term of 16 months, to be served consecutively to the term appellant was serving at the time of the instant offense. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Insofar as the record reveals, appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant, in response to this court’s invitation to submit briefing, has submitted a brief in which he argues his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated. We affirm.