IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
March 21, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CURTIS BROWN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F05323)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.
P. v. Brown
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Curtis Brown called the California State Automobile Association (CSAA) and reported that he had run out of gas and had parked on the side of the road. When he returned with some gas, he found his car had been side-swiped and his stereo and clothing had been taken. CSAA paid him $689 for the stereo and stolen clothing and $6,062 for the vehicle damage. It was determined that defendant had staged the accident as well as the thefts.
Pursuant to a plea bargain whereby defendant stipulated to a sentence of four years and the dismissal of other counts, he pleaded no contest to making false or fraudulent claims (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(5)) and admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
Defendant waived time for judgment and the court sentenced him to state prison for four years,*fn1 ordered him to pay restitution of $6,751, and imposed fines, fees, and assessments as set forth in detail in the abstract of judgment.
Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him. 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 have received no communication from defendant. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MURRAY , J. DUARTE , J.