IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
August 1, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
ROBERT STEVEN ZEMAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F05055)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
P. v. Zeman
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Between August 6 and 10, 2009, defendant Robert Steven Zeman downloaded more than 2000 images and 31 movies involving child pornography. He saved the images onto an external disc card and then deleted them from his computer. The items depicted persons under age 18 engaging in sexual conduct.*fn1
Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).)*fn2 Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on conditions including 365 days of incarceration with 57 days' custody credit and 28 days' conduct credit.*fn3 Defendant was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $287.78 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and a $59.23 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2).
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: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.