IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
May 10, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JOHN ANDREW CHILDS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM023634)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , J.
P. .v Childs
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
At 3:40 a.m. on August 2, 2005, sheriff deputies, investigating a report of naked man running around and acting strange, observed defendant John Andrew Childs standing near a car. Defendant saw the deputies, got into the car, and drove off at a high rate of speed. He went through stop lights and stop signs. When he finally stopped, he fled on foot. When caught, he was wearing shorts and shoes with no socks.
Defendant entered a no contest plea to felony evading (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of three years subject to certain terms and conditions.
During probation, defendant committed an act of indecent exposure. Probation was revoked but reinstated on modified terms and conditions including extension of probation for six additional months.
Defendant was subsequently convicted in Riverside County on theft-related offenses and was sentenced to state prison. Defendant admitted violating probation by failing to obey all laws. The court terminated probation and imposed a concurrent midterm of two years. The court awarded 243 actual days and 243 conduct days for a total of 486 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals. The trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
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 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.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.