People v. Dollar CA3

Opinion

Filed 7/14/26 P. v. Dollar CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C103954 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25CF01245) v. MICHAEL LESLIE DOLLAR, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Leslie Dollar, Jr., filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of this 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 affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On April 10, 2025, police arrested defendant after he posted multiple threatening or intimidating social media posts about the victim, despite being served with a “No Contact” restraining order. Defendant also previously threatened the victim via voicemail. The People charged defendant with felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations court order (id., § 273.6, subd. (a)). The People alleged a prior strike conviction.

1 Defendant ultimately pled no contest to stalking. As part of his plea agreement, defendant waived his right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances and agreed that the trial court could find aggravating circumstances based on the probation report. At sentencing, the trial court found true six aggravating circumstances and concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal without requesting a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ WISEMAN, J. We concur:

/s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/s/ MESIWALA, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.