P. v. Dezonia

Filed 5/11/06  P. v. Dezonia CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Trinity)

----

     Defendant Charles Edward Dezonia was placed on probation after he pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine in  violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision  (a).  Thereafter, defendant admitted violating the  terms of his probation.  The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in state prison.  The court imposed a restitution fine of $400 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended an additional restitution fine in the same amount pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).  Defendant was awarded 31 days of custody credit.  Defendant appeals.

     We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.  Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.  (People v. Wende (1979) 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 of 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.

                    RAYE           , J.

We concur:

          SCOTLAND       , P.J.

          DAVIS          , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.