THE PEOPLE v. RANDALL STEVEN SHINE (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Randall Steven Shine appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him on one count of making a criminal threat (Pen.Code,1 § 422).   We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2007, defendant moved in with June Schechter.   Theirs was a combative relationship.   On August 10, 2009, defendant screamed at Schechter over the telephone on her way to a medical appointment.   Defendant telephoned her twice again during her office treatment.   A nurse overheard defendant telling Schechter “ ‘when you get home, I'm gonna take myself out and you with me.’ ”   Schechter reported defendant to police, and he was arrested at her home.

A jury found defendant guilty of making a criminal threat as charged in count 4 of the first amended information.   However, the jury was hopelessly deadlocked on charges that defendant had committed assault with a semiautomatic weapon (§ 245, subd. (b)), inflicted corporal injury on a co-habitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and made a criminal threat (§ 422) (counts 1 through 3), arising from incidents days earlier.   The trial court declared a mistrial as to those counts.²  Defendant was thereafter sentenced for making a criminal threat (count 4) to the upper term of three years in state prison.   The remaining counts were dismissed in the interests of justice (§ 1385).

The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $30 security fee, a $30 criminal assessment fine and a $600 restitution fine.   A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45.   Defendant was awarded 390 days of presentence custody credits (260 actual days and 130 days of conduct credits).³

DISCUSSION

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.   We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.   On October 5, 2010, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.   No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119;  People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FN2. Prior to trial, defendant waived his right to counsel, but he later requested and received appointed counsel.   Defendant also made two Marsden motions (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), which the trial court heard and denied..  FN2. Prior to trial, defendant waived his right to counsel, but he later requested and received appointed counsel.   Defendant also made two Marsden motions (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), which the trial court heard and denied.

FN3. The trial court revoked and terminated defendant's misdemeanor probation in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. 7VY01992 (driving while having a blood alcohol level of .08 or more)..  FN3. The trial court revoked and terminated defendant's misdemeanor probation in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. 7VY01992 (driving while having a blood alcohol level of .08 or more).

WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.