People v. Crist CA3

Opinion

Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Crist CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C104392 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25CF00850) v. DERRICK DEON CRIST, Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Derrick Deon Crist pled no contest to vandalism and was sentenced to two years in county prison. Appointed counsel for defendant asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with felony vandalism resulting in more than $400 in damages to an elevator and parking kiosk belonging to the City of Chico.1 Defendant pled no contest.

1 The parties stipulated to the probation report, probable cause declaration, and police reports as the factual basis of the plea. However, the probation report does not contain any facts and the other documents are not in the record. We need not address this 1 In April 2025, the trial court denied defendant’s motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, finding defense counsel was properly representing defendant and could continue to do so. The next month, defendant pled no contest to felony vandalism resulting in more than $400 in damages in exchange for a stipulated “terminal” two-year sentence; defendant declined probation or mandatory supervision. The prosecution agreed not to file any cases pending against defendant. The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years pursuant to the plea agreement and imposed a $600 restitution fine, a $40 court operations assessment, a $30 conviction assessment, and a $39 theft fine.2 Defendant appeals. The trial court denied his request for 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.

because defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, and this deficiency would go to the validity of the plea. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 677 [the “defendant is ‘not required to comply with the provisions of [Penal Code] section 1237.5 where … he is not attempting to challenge the validity of his plea of guilty’ ”].) 2 The trial court did not impose a mandatory identical parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45) because defendant was not subject to supervised release due to his stipulated “terminal” sentence.

2 Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ ROBIE, J.

We concur:

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/ MAURO, J.