IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer)
May 10, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
NATHAN TYLER BROGAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 62-099654)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Brogan
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Nathan Tyler Brogan was convicted pursuant to a no contest plea of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison.
Defendant's ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree burglary in exchange for an agreement that a remaining charge and an enhancement would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to state prison for a term of 16 months. The trial court sentenced defendant forthwith in accordance with this agreement. Defendant received 82 days of actual credit and 82 days of conduct credit for a total of 164 days of presentence credit.
According to evidence presented at the preliminary examination in the matter, the victim misplaced three money orders while in a train station, which were found by the co-defendant. The co-defendant told defendant he had found the money orders and asked defendant to assist him in cashing them. Defendant opened a bank account and cashed the money orders, then split the proceeds among the co-defendant, defendant's girlfriend and himself.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record to determine whether there were 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.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE , Acting P. J. DUARTE , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.