IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
November 27, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
VIBOL OEUN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF120077A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Oeun 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Vibol Oeun has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We shall affirm the judgment.
On March 23, 2012, defendant took CDs and a bicycle lock from a Wal-Mart store without paying for them. He has been convicted of three prior theft offenses for which he was incarcerated.
Defendant pled no contest to theft with prior theft-related convictions for which he was incarcerated (Pen. Code, § 666, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation with a year in county jail as one of the conditions of probation, consecutive to a term defendant was currently serving. The trial court also imposed various fines and fees.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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. (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. We have 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. NICHOLSON , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.