IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT Sacramento
March 17, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
TERRELL RAY O'NEAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Super. Ct. No. 09F02812
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull ,j.
P. v. O'Neal CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In April 2009, defendant Terrell Ray O'Neal entered a department store fitting room, removed security sensors from several items of clothing, concealed the items on his person, and left the store without paying for any of the items.*fn1 Security personnel stopped defendant and returned him to the store.
In May 2009, criminal proceedings were suspended, defendant was found incompetent to stand trial, and he was placed at a state hospital. In February 2010, defendant's competency was restored and criminal proceedings were reinstated.
Defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); further undesignated statutory references are to this code) and admitted an August 2000 serious felony strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, two related counts were dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the stipulated low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike; awarded 276 days' custody credit, 138 days' conduct credit, and 64 days' state hospital credit*fn2 ; ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $574; and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
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: RAYE , P.J. HOCH ,J.