IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
March 25, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
ANTHONY DEMONE STUART, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. MF031877A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Stuart 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Anthony Demone Stuart 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.
A jury previously found defendant guilty of residential burglary, receipt of stolen property and obstructing a peace officer. (People v. Stuart (Nov. 8, 2011, C063335) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in state prison. (Ibid.) On appeal, this court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter with directions to the trial court to conduct a Marsden*fn1 hearing. (Ibid.)
In August 2012, the trial court heard defendant's Marsden motion. After listening to defendant's concerns and defense counsel's responses, the trial court found that defendant received competent assistance from counsel at trial. The trial court denied defendant's Marsden motion and reinstated the judgment and 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 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: ROBIE , Acting P. J. DUARTE , J.