Filed 5/5/17 P. v. McRorie 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Placer)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT VERNON MCRORIE,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083622

(Super. Ct. No. 62-147526A)




Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Vernon McRorie 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.
BACKGROUND
In September 2016, defendant took a $24,500 forklift and drove away with it. In exchange for a stipulated three-year sentence--with suspension of one year for mandatory supervision--defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and unlawful taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Separately, the People moved to dismiss the prior prison term allegations for insufficient evidence.
The trial court imposed the upper term of three years for grand theft, stayed the unlawful taking of a vehicle count pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and suspended one year of the three-year jail term for mandatory supervision.
The court imposed various terms of supervision. Responding to defendant’s concern, the court also ordered probation to meet with defendant at least 30 days before his release, to review services that may assist him in his transition to supervision.
The court awarded 57 days of credit (29 actual, 28 conduct). The court also imposed various fines and fees. Defendant timely appealed.
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/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Robie, Acting P. J.





/s/
Butz, J.