IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
January 18, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JOHN SAENZ, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. Nos. CM025045, CM025791 & CM032864)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Saenz CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant John Saenz, Jr., 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.
On May 13, 2006, law enforcement officers responded to a 911 emergency call from a residence in Oroville, California. Rachelle M. reported that during an argument, defendant pointed a handgun at her and fired two rounds. Defendant admitted brandishing a gun and firing two rounds into the air. In case No. CM025045, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a); count 2)*fn1 in exchange for dismissal of other counts.
On September 25, 2006, a motorist named Avila stopped his car on Highway 70 to help what appeared to be a stranded, female motorist. But defendant approached Avila, held a knife to his throat, pulled him out of the car and threw him to the ground. Defendant's female cohort drove away in Avila's car and defendant left in another car. In case No. CM025791, defendant pleaded no contest to taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a).
The trial court subsequently entered judgment in both cases, sentencing defendant to the upper term of three years in case No. CM025045 and imposing a consecutive middle term of eight months in case No. CM025791. The trial court suspended execution of sentence and granted defendant probation on various terms and conditions, including 120 days in jail and waiver of custody credits.
On December 23, 2009, law enforcement conducted a traffic stop on defendant and searched him pursuant to the conditions of his probation. Law enforcement found 22.13 grams of methamphetamine and 42 and a half hydrocodone pills in defendant's possession. Defendant admitted that he intended to sell the methamphetamine and transport the hydrocodone. In case No. CM032864, defendant pleaded no contest to transportation of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 3) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 4), in exchange for dismissal of other counts and enhancement allegations. Between 2009 and 2011, defendant repeatedly violated his probation. He also occasionally failed to appear at probation violation hearings and was placed in custody. On April 28, 2011, the trial court pronounced judgment in case No. CM032864. It found that defendant violated his probation, and it sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of ten years four months in prison, consisting of the upper term of five years for count 3 in case No. CM032864, a consecutive term of eight months for count 4 in case No. CM032864, two consecutive terms of eight months for defendant's convictions in case Nos. CM025045 and CM025791, and another three and one-third years for cases not included in this appeal.
At a subsequent hearing, the trial court determined defendant was entitled to 942 days of custody credit (355 actual, 355 conduct, and 232 state time). The trial court also imposed various fines and fees. Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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: ROBIE , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.