IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
December 12, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CHARLIE SMITH, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F07698)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Charlie Smith was asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issue 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 November 7, 2011, defendant and another person stole two television sets, a DVD player, and several video games from a Toys R Us store. The next day, defendant and another person broke into an AT&T store and took a nonoperational display cell phone.
Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 459) and admitted a strike allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of five years four months in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded defendant 357 days of presentence credit (179 actual and 178 conduct).
Defendant appeals. The trial court denied his request for 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. 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: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. ROBIE , J.