IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Glenn)
June 11, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
KONG MENG VANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10SCR06796)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Vang
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Kong Meng Vang, 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 concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.
On September 1, 2010, California Fish and Game Warden Mike Beals watched defendant and others hunt mourning doves. Beals saw defendant kill a dove but fail to retrieve the dead bird, as required by law. Beals wrote defendant a citation. Later, Beals learned that although defendant had a hunting license, he was also previously convicted of a felony and thus, not permitted to possess a gun.
Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, received three years of probation, and was ordered to pay various fines and fees. Defendant appeals; his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked 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 have elapsed and we have 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 , J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.