Filed 7/20/17 P. v. Fisher CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY ALLEN FISHER,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073762

(Super. Ct. No. F16901033)


OPINION


THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brant K. Bramer, Commissioner.
James E. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-



Counsel for appellant Michael Anthony Allen Fisher (appellant), filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) asserting that after reviewing the records, he could not find any arguable issues. We agree there are no arguable issues in the case and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On February 13, 2016, appellant was pulled over by Fresno Police Department for a traffic stop. Officers contacted appellant and appellant advised that he did not have his driver’s license with him. Appellant initially provided the officers with a false name. After further conversation, appellant conceded his true identity and was found to have a suspended driver’s license and an outstanding warrant. A search of the vehicle uncovered multiple identification cards from different states and with different names, but contained appellant’s photograph. Officers also found several checks and credit cards that did not belong to appellant.
On March 2, 2016, a first amended complaint charged appellant as follows: identity theft, a felony (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(2)/count 1), providing false information to a police officer, a misdemeanor (§ 148.9, subd. (a)/count 2), and driving on a suspended license, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)/count 3). The complaint further alleged, as to count 1, that appellant has a pattern of felony conduct involving the taking of more than $100,000 (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3)), and that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On that same date, appellant pled no contest to all charges and admitted all allegations.
On March 30, 2016, the court sentenced appellant to five years’ probation. In addition, appellant was ordered to serve 365 days in the Fresno County jail, to be served in a treatment program. Appellant received credit for time served on counts 2 and 3. Appellant was granted 47 days of actual credit and 46 days of conduct credit, for a total of 93 days’ credit for time served. He was also ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)), and a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On May 19, 2016, appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause. The request for a certificate of probable cause stated that appellant was told he would be getting three years’ felony probation and one-year “AB109” probation. Appellant further claimed that he asked his attorney if he could withdraw his plea and was told he could not do so. The trial court granted the request.
DISCUSSION
On October 11, 2016, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, appointed counsel filed an appellant’s opening brief requesting that this court independently review the entire record on appeal. On that same date, this court advised appellant that he may submit a letter stating any grounds on appeal that he wants this court to consider. Appellant filed no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.