IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
January 31, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
TOMMY E. JOHNSON, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F07612)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Johnson
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Tommy E. Johnson 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 shall affirm the judgment.
From August 2011 to October 2011, defendant lived with the victim. In October 2011, the victim decided to end their relationship. While at a department store one evening, the two argued. Defendant punched the victim on her right jaw, knocking her to the ground and injuring her.
Defendant pleaded no contest pursuant to a plea agreement to infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 273.5, subd. (a).) A second degree robbery charge (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) was dismissed in the interest of justice.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days of incarceration. He was awarded 140 days of custody credit and 140 days of conduct credit and was ordered to pay various fines and fees.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE , P. J. BUTZ , J.