The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, Acting P.J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Demetric Ian Antonia asked this court to review the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.
I On September 23, 2009, after midnight, a woman sleeping in her living room awoke to see defendant opening the front door, leaving the apartment. The victim woke her roommate, who was asleep in one of the bedrooms. The two of them walked around the apartment and saw that the screen on a bedroom window had been removed and some of their personal property was missing.
Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), including the allegation that the crime was a violent felony, as that term is used in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c). Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge and admitted the allegation. In exchange for his plea, the People agreed not to allege a prior juvenile adjudication as a strike.
The court denied defendant's request for probation and sentenced him to the low term of two years in state prison. Defendant was ordered to pay various fines and fees, including direct restitution to the victims, and awarded 33 days of presentence credit pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1, consisting of 29 days of custody credit and 4 days of conduct credit.
Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.
II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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 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. ...