IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
October 31, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
ON T. TRAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F02625)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Tran
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant On T. Tran entered a negotiated plea of no contest to willful failure to register as a sex offender. The trial court sentenced him to five years of formal probation in accordance with the plea.
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 offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
Following his 1997 conviction of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1),*fn1  defendant was required to register pursuant to section 290. Between March 20, 2011, and April 9, 2011, defendant failed to notify the appropriate law enforcement agency within five days after coming into Sacramento County.*fn2 
On April 14, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to willful failure to register as a sexual offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b).) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on formal probation for five years on conditions including 180 days in the county jail, with six days of custody credit and two days of conduct credit.*fn3  He was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (id., § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (id., § 1202.44), a $40 court security fee (id., § 1465.8 , subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
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. (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. 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: ROBIE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.