(Super. Ct. No. NCR75169)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch, 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. After an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment.
Defendant Michael Rene Martinez suspected a man of taking his medical marijuana plants. On September 26, 2008, defendant lured the man into his van, locked the doors, and drove off while threatening his victim. The man escaped through the van's back window, but was shot three times by defendant, sustaining wounds to his left calf, right thigh, and left thigh. A stray bullet hit the windshield of a nearby occupied truck.
Defendant pled no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207)*fn1 and criminal threats (§ 422) and admitted an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of 25 years and 8 months in prison, ordered $2,000 in victim restitution, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 625 days' presentence credit, consisting of 544 days' custody and 81 days' conduct credit (§ 2933.1).*fn2
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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, 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.