IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
December 9, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
LAWRENCE THOMPSON, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM-033109)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
P. v. Thompson
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 June 28, 2008, at around 3:44 a.m., defendant Lawrence Thompson, Jr., burned his ex-girlfriend's car after a dispute over money he claimed she owed him. The car was totaled, with an estimated loss of $11,502.
Defendant pled guilty to arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d))*fn1 and vandalism causing over $400 in damage (§ 594, subd. (a)) as alleged in San Joaquin County amended complaint No. TP035092A. Defendant was later allowed to withdraw his plea on the arson charge, which was then dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years' probation, subject to various terms and conditions.
On October 12, 2010, the Butte County Superior Court accepted transfer of defendant's probation pursuant to section 1203.9.
On March 27, 2011, at around 8:41 a.m., defendant struck his girlfriend twice in the face, grabbed her by her neck, and threw her to the ground after she tried to leave their apartment.
Defendant subsequently admitted to violating his probation. The trial court terminated defendant's probation, sentenced him to two years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 460 days' presentence credit (230 custody and 230 conduct).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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 that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE , J. BUTZ , J.