Filed 12/11/18 P. v. Disney 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RENAE DAWN DISNEY,
Defendant and Appellant. |
C087356
(Super. Ct. No. 16CF01881)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Renae Dawn Disney 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.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
BACKGROUND
Defendant was upset with Adam Wrangham because he owed her approximately 6,000 for trimming and manicuring marijuana, and had paid her with $300 in counterfeit currency. Codefendant Jeffrey Stringer believed Adam Wrangham owed him 20 pounds of marijuana. Defendant, Stringer, and Mike Warmack planned a home invasion robbery against Adam Wrangham. The robbery took place on November 23, 2015. Adam Wrangham died of two gunshot wounds to the chest sustained during the robbery.
Defendant pleaded no contest to home invasion robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The trial court sentenced defendant to serve a nine-year state prison term, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded her 814 days of presentence credit (708 actual and 106 conduct).
Defendant appeals. She 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 her 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/
HOCH, J.
We concur:
/s/
RAYE, P. J.
/s/
HULL, J.
