IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter)
December 12, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JESSIE JEROME BAILEY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF11-0081)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Bailey
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Jessie Jerome Bailey entered a plea of guilty to theft with three or more prior theft convictions. The trial court sentenced him to three years of formal probation and 365 days in county jail.
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.
Defendant was arrested after stealing approximately $283 worth of merchandise from a Kmart store. Police searched his backpack and found marijuana. Defendant was charged with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), theft with a prior theft-related conviction (id., § 484/666), resisting a peace officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)).
Represented by counsel, defendant pleaded guilty to theft with three or more prior theft convictions in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges.
The trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three years subject to specified terms and conditions, ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail (minus 61 days of presentence custody credit), and imposed specified fees and fines. The remaining charges against him were dismissed.
Defendant filed a motion to modify probation. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. However, after some discussion with the court, he withdrew his motion. The court modified defendant's sentence to require that he serve 360 (not 365) days in county jail.
Defendant appeals. 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 that is more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. ROBIE , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.