Filed 5/17/18 P. v. Kennedy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

RICHARD AARON KENNEDY,

Defendant and Appellant.


C085631

(Super. Ct. No. 17CF02770)


Appointed counsel for defendant Richard Aaron Kennedy 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 spotted exiting the victim’s stolen vehicle. He was also seen using a key to operate the vehicle. Inside the vehicle, an officer found a wallet holding defendant’s identification card.
Defendant was charged with (1) driving or taking a vehicle without consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and (2) receiving a stolen motor vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a). Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) In exchange, the remaining count was dismissed with a Harvey waiver.
The trial court granted defendant three years’ formal probation and ordered him to serve 180 days in jail with credit for 54 actual days. The court also imposed various fines and fees.
Defendant 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 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.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
BLEASE, Acting P. J.



/s/
MAURO, J.