IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
January 18, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
KRIS MYHRE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF113071A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
P. v. Myhre
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Kris Myhre was arrested after breaking into a residence occupied by the victim (his ex-girlfriend) and another woman and shoving the victim onto the couch as she screamed for help.
Defendant pleaded guilty to felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)), first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and admitted that the residence was occupied at the time of the burglary (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations, suspension of criminal proceedings and referral to the appropriate Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility for a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03, followed by a maximum sentence of one year in county jail.
Upon completion of the diagnostic study and preparation of a probation report, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation, subject to specified terms and conditions, including that defendant obey all laws and have no contact with the victim or her family.
Several months later, following a contested hearing, the trial court sustained allegations that defendant had violated his probation by contacting the victim in violation of the no-contact order. The court denied probation, sentenced defendant to a term of four years eight months in state prison, imposed specified fees and fines, and awarded him 332 days of actual credit plus 49 days of conduct credit for a total of 381 days of presentence custody credit.
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 have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.