People v. Roehrich CA3

Filed 3/23/23 P. v. Roehrich CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096399

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CF04974)

v.

GERALD ROEHRICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Gerald Roehrich 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.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND On January 7, 2022, defendant resolved the case against him by pleading no contest to felony grand theft of property from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c))1 and admitting he had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, he received dismissal of the remaining charge and enhancement. The stipulated factual basis for his plea was to be taken from the probation report. At a hearing on February 17, 2022, defendant was referred for a determination of his suitability/eligibility for mental health diversion. At the sentencing hearing on May 19, 2022, defendant withdrew his request for mental health diversion, and the trial court elected not to strike defendant’s prior strike and stated that even if it could grant probation, it would not. The court then determined defendant’s prior convictions were numerous (citing 12 felony and two misdemeanor convictions), he had served prior prison sentences, he was on probation when the theft was committed, and his prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory.2 The court weighed these aggravating circumstances against defendant’s possible mental health and substance abuse problems (as well as factors to be considered under § 1170, subd. (b)(6)) and found imposition of a lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. Instead, the court imposed the upper term of six years (three years doubled because of the prior strike) with credit for 238 actual days, plus 238 conduct days for a total of 476 days’ custody credit.