Filed 3/21/18 P. v. Kuykendall 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Tehama)
----


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TRINA WORTHY KUYKENDALL,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085477

(Super. Ct. No. NCR96839)



A complaint charged defendant Trina Worthy Kuykendall with being a felon in possession of a firearm (count I), receiving stolen property worth over $950 (count II), being a felon in possession of ammunition (count III), and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place (count IV).
Defendant pled guilty to count I, with the remaining counts dismissed, in return for a stipulated two-year state prison sentence. The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea was found in the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department crime report.
The crime report stated that on the morning of September 17, 2015, a sheriff’s deputy saw defendant pushing a motorcycle with expired tags. When he approached, she reached toward her waistband. Grabbing her hand, he found a revolver, which had been reported stolen, concealed under her jacket. Defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.
After defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea was denied, the trial court imposed the stipulated two-year state prison sentence. The court awarded defendant five days of presentence custody credits (three actual days and two conduct days). The court ordered defendant to pay a $600 restitution fine, a matching suspended parole revocation restitution fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.
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.

/s/
Robie, Acting P. J.
We concur:


/s/
Murray, J.


/s/
Duarte, J.