Filed 12/7/18 P. v. Defeher 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Placer)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOHN THOMAS DARRELL DEFEHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C087077
(Super. Ct. No. 62-143067)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant John Thomas Darrell Defeher filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 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.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2015, defendant took J.R.’s 2001 Harley Davidson motorcycle from the Thunder Valley Casino without the owner’s consent. The motorcycle was worth about $15,000.
Defendant pleaded no contest to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court imposed a 32-month state prison term, ordered various fines and fees, and awarded 88 days of presentence credits (44 actual and 44 conduct).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
HULL, Acting P. J.
/S/
ROBIE, J.
