IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
March 27, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 12F01874)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Gabriel Hernandez 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.
In March 2012, defendant punched the victim, causing him to suffer a broken nose and other injuries. In April 2012, defendant pleaded no contest to battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 243, subd. (d)) and admitted an allegation that he personally inflicted the serious injury (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). Counts of first degree burglary (§ 459) and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) were dismissed in light of the plea. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the condition, among others that he serve 180 days of incarceration with 44 days of custody credit and 44 days of conduct credit. Defendant was ordered to make restitution to the victim and to pay a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $240 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $25 urinalysis testing fee, and a $46 per month probation supervision fee.
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.) 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 has elapsed, and we have 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: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MURRAY , J.