IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
June 11, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MICHAEL LUCAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F04047)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.
P. v. Lucas
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In June 2011, defendant Michael Lucas possessed a useable quantity of methamphetamine. He pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine.
Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years and referred to a Proposition 36 program. He was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 court facilities assessment.
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 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: BUTZ , J. MURRAY , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.