Filed 3/23/18 P. v. Davis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

KAJA SHARLESE DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.


C085361

(Super. Ct. No. CRF15-0000620-02)




Appointed counsel for defendant Kaja Sharlese Davis 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
A probation search of defendant’s home uncovered a nine-millimeter handgun. Defendant had previously been convicted of a felony. In exchange for no immediate prison time and the dismissal of her remaining counts, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a).) She also admitted a probation violation.
At sentencing, the trial court terminated a previous grant of probation as unsuccessful and imposed a new three-year probation term. The trial court also ordered defendant to complete 80 hours in the sheriff’s work project.
Four months later, defendant admitted a probation violation for failing to report to probation. The trial court declined to reinstate probation, imposed a 16-month term, awarded 93 days of presentence credit (47 actual, 46 conduct), and ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees.
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. (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/
BLEASE, Acting P. J.


/S/
BUTZ, J.