The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray ,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).*fn1 Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On January 27, 2010, a group of individuals ordered pizza to be delivered to a vacant address and then, using a rifle and a handgun, robbed the deliveryman. Most of the individuals involved in the robbery were minors and affiliated with the Norteno gang. Defendant was privy to the robbery plan and provided one of the guns.*fn2 He also gave one of the robbers a red bandana to cover his face. Defendant waited at a house across the street during the robbery and, afterwards, they all went to defendant's house and ate the pizzas.
Defendant pled no contest to robbery and admitted the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B).)*fn3 An additional charge for active participation in a criminal street gang was dismissed. (§ 186.22, subd. (a).)
The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years for the robbery and a consecutive five years for the gang enhancement. Defendant was also ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $2,731.17. The trial court imposed a restitution fine and a stayed parole revocation fine in the amount of $1,600 each, a $30 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. Defendant was awarded 174 actual days and 26 conduct days for a total of 200 days of custody credit. (§ 2933.1.) A subsequent motion to recall the sentenced was denied.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
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: RAYE , P.J. ...