IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)
August 17, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
LORENZO SAENZ MURILLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF091473)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.
P. v. Murillo CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A man confronted defendant Lorenzo Saenz Murillo as he was urinating next to an apartment complex. Defendant punched the man and then drew a knife and threatened to stab him.
Defendant pled no contest to felony unlawful carrying of a dirk or dagger and misdemeanor battery in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and no state prison at the outset. The court denied probation as to the misdemeanor count and sentenced defendant to 180 days in county jail with credit for time served. As for the felony count, as part of the negotiated resolution, the court imposed but stayed execution of a three-year prison sentence, placed defendant on probation, and ordered him to serve 14 days in county jail with credit for time served.*fn1
Thereafter, the probation department filed a declaration alleging defendant violated probation after he was arrested for his involvement in a domestic disturbance. While awaiting a hearing, defendant pled no contest to misdemeanor false imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 236.) Following a contested hearing, the court sustained the alleged probation violation, executed the previously imposed three-year prison sentence, and ordered defendant to pay specified fees and fines. The court awarded defendant 10 days of actual custody credit plus 4 days of conduct credit for a total of 14 days of presentence custody credit.*fn2
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 in favor of defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ , J. MURRAY , J.