IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
February 10, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DAVID NOAH WOODALL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F00151)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Woodall
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This appeal is taken pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
As part of a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to attempting to bring marijuana into prison. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/4573.5.) The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement, to the midterm of one year, to be run concurrently with any other sentence he was currently serving. Because defendant was already a sentenced prisoner, he was not entitled to any presentence custody credits in this case. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, but his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
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. (Wende, supra, 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 have elapsed, and we have 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.
HULL , J.
MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.