IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
August 8, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MAURICE VAURIN GLASS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F05225)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Glass CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On July 26, 2011, the victim noticed his property, which had been stolen, was listed for sale on Craig's List. The victim contacted the seller, defendant Maurice Vaurin Glass, who agreed to meet to sell the property to the victim. When they met, the victim claimed ownership of the property. Defendant pushed the victim and left the scene, taking the property with him.
Charged with second degree robbery, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the reasonably related offense of felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c) (property taken from person of another)) in exchange for no state prison at the outset. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions including one year in county jail.
With new counsel, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. After hearing the testimony of defendant's former counsel and defendant, the court denied the motion.
Defendant appeals. The court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
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: MAURO , J. DUARTE , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.