(Super. Ct. No. 98F01523)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Chandra Kishor pleaded no contest in 2000 to residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)*fn1 and attempted murder with premeditation (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), in return for the dismissal of three other counts (conspiracy to commit murder--§ 182, subd. (a)(1); residential burglary--§ 459; and torture--§ 206). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 11 years to life in state prison (four years for robbery plus a consecutive indeterminate term of seven years to life for attempted murder).
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant thereafter filed a supplemental brief. This court rejected defendant's contentions, found no other arguable issues that could benefit him, and affirmed the judgment. (People v. Kishor (Jan. 9, 2001, C034740) [nonpub. opn.].)
On November 4, 2010, defendant in propria persona filed a motion in the trial court styled "Notice of Request to Recall Sentence Under [Penal Code section] 1170[, subdivision] (d) for Illegal Sentence Under [sections] 1168[, subdivision] (b) [and] 1238[, subdivision] (a)(10): Witness Tampering/Drug Addicts, Coerced; Pressured--(i.e.,) 'States Confidential.'" On November 15, 2010, the trial court denied the request. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from that ruling.
The record on this appeal does not contain a succinct statement of the factual basis for defendant's plea. However, the conduct to which defendant pleaded no contest apparently involved a conspiracy by defendant and others, pursuant to which the conspirators entered the home of the victim (defendant's wife), robbed her, and attempted to murder her.
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 have elapsed, and we have 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. ...