IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
May 14, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
GARY CHRISTOPHER COMBS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F0002250)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
P. v. Combs
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Gary Christopher Combs 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.
In December 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft of personal property and was sentenced to three years in county jail, two years of which were suspended subject to mandatory supervision, in accordance with his plea. Defendant also was ordered to pay restitution to his victim in the amount of $41,933.38. Defendant did not appeal from that order.
On August 10, 2012, the trial court held a restitution hearing on the People's motion to add another $3,687.96 to the order for restitution. The court ordered the additional restitution amount over defendant's objection. Defendant appeals from that order.
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: MURRAY , J. HOCH , J.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.