Filed 4/26/18 P. v. Bolefahr 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARRELL MICHAEL BOLEFAHR,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085696

(Super. Ct. No. 16 F 0007161)



Appointed counsel for defendant Darrell Michael Bolefahr asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Suspecting he was driving under the influence, two officers pulled defendant over. After defendant successfully performed several field sobriety tests, an officer asked defendant’s permission to search the car. Defendant assented. The search uncovered opened mail and checks belonging to several victims.
Following an unsuccessful suppression motion, defendant pleaded no contest to felony identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5) and admitted to suffering a prior conviction for identity theft. In exchange, the remaining counts were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, and defendant would receive probation, serving no more than 180 days in jail.
At sentencing, the trial court ordered three years of formal probation and ordered defendant to serve 180 days in jail, but citing defendant’s past offenses added, “If I could give him more, I would.” The court also imposed various fines and fees. Following defense counsel’s objection, the court struck proposed probation condition 16, which prohibited alcohol use and possession.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.




/s/
Mauro, J.