Filed 10/12/18 P. v. Brock 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yuba)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RACHEL JANETTE BROCK,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
C087001
(Super. Ct. No. CRF1700436)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Rachel Janette Brock asked this court to review the record and 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.
I
Defendant, who was renting a room from Todd F., stole a total of $24,830 from him. Defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487), executed a People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 waiver, and admitted violating probation in an unrelated case. She subsequently admitted violating the Cruz waiver by failing to appear for her scheduled sentencing hearing. Sentencing her in this case and the unrelated case, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years eight months in county jail, ordered her to pay various fines and fees, and subsequently ordered victim restitution of $24,830 following a restitution hearing. The trial court awarded presentence credit only in the unrelated case. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II
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. (People v. 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
MAURO, J.
We concur:
/S/
RAYE, P. J.
/S/
BUTZ, J.
