IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
November 5, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
RICHARD EARL LAIL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM036337)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Lail
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Richard Earl Lail 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
Defendant failed to report after being released from custody and there was a warrant for his arrest. A Chico police officer contacted defendant on April 6, 2012, while defendant was on parole. Defendant was riding a bicycle that had been reported stolen. Defendant claimed he bought the bicycle for $60 from "Jerry" but defendant had no idea where Jerry lived or how to contact him.
Defendant pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of three years in prison and dismissal of the charged enhancements. Defendant admitted he was not eligible to serve his sentence in county jail due to his 2010 conviction for rape. (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 1170, subd. (h)(3).) The trial court sentenced defendant consistent with the stipulated sentence.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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: RAYE , P. J. MURRAY , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.