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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 David Kenneth Amos admitted violating probation and was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years eight 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.
In July 2010, defendant pleaded no contest to spousal abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), and resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted probation, conditioned on serving 180 days in county jail. Various fines and fees were imposed. Defendant was ordered to have no contact with the victim.
Twenty days after he was released from his county jail term, defendant was found hiding in the victim's home. Two nights later, he returned to her home and choked her in an attempt to kill her.
A petition for violation of probation was filed, alleging defendant had contacted the victim and again resisted officers. He admitted the probation violation and was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years eight months in state prison. The previously imposed fines and fees were reimposed and defendant was ordered to pay the probation revocation fine. Defendant was granted 138 days of actual credit and 138 days of custody credit for a total of 276 days of presentence credit.
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. ...