IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
January 11, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DAVID LESTER MURRAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM032686)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye, P.J.
P. v. Murray
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant David Lester Murray was arrested after he admitted he shoplifted from a market in Butte County and was found to be in possession of evidence linking him to a residential burglary. He pled no contest to petty theft with a prior and admitted a prior strike conviction for a 2004 residential burglary in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 and a stipulated six-year state prison sentence.
The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, doubled pursuant to the prior strike, for an aggregate term of six years in state prison, consistent with the negotiated plea. The court imposed specified fees and fines and awarded defendant 25 days' actual custody credits, plus 12 days' conduct credits, for a total of 37 days' presentence custody credits. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J. MAURO, J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.