Filed 8/15/17 P. v. Jones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
TREVELL LABRIE DELANEY JONES,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C083879
(Super. Ct. No. 16CF04489)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Trevell Labrie Delaney Jones[1] 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[2]
Two probation officers saw defendant walking down the street and recognized him as a parolee. Defendant appeared to be holding something near his hip. When the officers identified themselves, defendant fled, ignoring their commands to stop. When defendant was later apprehended, he said he had discarded a handgun nearby. A loaded .22-caliber handgun was later found. Defendant was also found with a blue bandana and two small bags of marijuana.
Defendant pleaded no contest to possessing a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange, the remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed.
The trial court imposed an aggregate five-year state prison term, consisting of the upper term of three years for possessing the firearm, plus one year for each prior prison term. The court also imposed various fines and fees and awarded 197 days of credit (99 actual, 98 conduct).
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 his 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.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
BLEASE , J.
BUTZ , J.
