People v. Tullis CA3

Filed 6/27/23 P. v. Tullis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097786

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR63992)

v.

DAMON RAY TULLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Damon Ray Tullis 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.) After reviewing the entire record, 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 At the time of the charged offenses, defendant was on probation. A semi- automatic shotgun was found at defendant’s residence during the execution of a search warrant. He was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count I);1 one count of possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)—count II); and receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a) —count III). On December 19, 2022, defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. In exchange, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges and defendant agreed to a maximum sentence of three years. The stipulated factual basis for defendant’s plea was taken from the probation report. The court denied probation and imposed a sentence of two years in prison, the middle term. The court granted two actual days of custody credit. The court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and imposed, but suspended, a parole revocation fine in an equal amount (§ 1202.45). Finally, the court ordered defendant to pay a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. II. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days