IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
May 13, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JESSE ALLEN REEVES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM036116)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
P. v. Reeves
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On February 28, 2012, defendant Jesse Allen Reeves broke into the home of Jennifer Russell and took 27 Vicodin tablets, 50 Norco tablets, and 40 Tramadol tablets. Russell had a domestic violence restraining order against defendant at the time. Defendant left the residence when Russell's roommate told him to leave.
Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary while another person other than an accomplice was present (Pen. Code, § 459) and misdemeanor disobeying a protective order (id., § 273.6, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 88 days of presentence credit, consisting of 77 actual days and 11 days of conduct credit.
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 have 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. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.