IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Glenn)
September 28, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
BRETT DAVIS FEHLMAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10SCR06544)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie ,j.
P. v. Fehlman
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On May 29, 2010, an officer, who was sent to a location to speak with a woman about a misunderstanding she had with defendant Brett Davis Fehlman, learned that defendant was a sex registrant who had failed to register within five days of his birthday.
Defendant pled guilty to failing to update his annual registration as a sex offender, a felony in exchange for the prosecution's recommendation of no state prison at the outset. On August 13, 2010, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of three years subject to certain terms and conditions including that he obey all laws.
A petition to revoke probation filed November 8, 2010, alleged that defendant drove on a suspended and revoked license and while under the influence of methamphetamine.
Defendant admitted violating probation. The court reinstated probation subject to 30 days in county jail.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 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, at p. 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. HOCH , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.