IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama)
April 11, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DANIEL TORRES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. NCR81285)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Torres
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Daniel Torres 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 January 25, 2011, while in Salt Creek Conservation Camp, defendant Daniel Torres possessed concentrated cannabis. He entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance in jail (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of two years. The trial court sentenced defendant consistent with the plea agreement.
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: HULL , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.