IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
February 16, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DAYNE SALCEDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F03548)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Salcedo
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Dayne Salcedo entered a negotiated plea of no contest to discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner. (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to a year in the county jail 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.
According to the factual basis provided at the time of his plea, defendant "fired across a busy street," striking a vehicle. In exchange for defendant's plea, the remaining charges were dismissed and it was agreed he would be sentenced to a year in county jail. The trial court placed defendant on five years of formal probation and sentenced him in accordance with the agreement. At sentencing in June 2011, defendant was awarded 56 days of presentence credit (38 actual days and 18 conduct days).
Defendant appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to Wende, supra,25 Cal.3d 436, requested the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 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.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.