(Super. Ct. No. 10SCR07013)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Wayne Barsch asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no entitlement to additional presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment.
In December 2010, California Department of Fish and Game wardens contacted three hunters, including defendant. Defendant was found to be in possession of marijuana and a loaded firearm. When questioned about the firearm, defendant said it belonged to his friend; his prior felony conviction prohibited him from possessing one. Later that day, wardens searched defendant's residence and located various bear parts.
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of bear parts for sale. (Fish & Game Code, § 4758, subd. (a).) In exchange, counts alleging possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, §§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), 12316, subd. (b)(1))*fn1 were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)
The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for two years, awarded him 55 days of custody credit and 55 days of conduct credit, and ordered him to pay a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a $400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45).
Appointed 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 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: RAYE , P. J. ...