Filed 10/31/18 P. v. Moreno 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Glenn)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NICO MARTIN COLLINS MORENO,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C086548
(Super. Ct. No. 17NCR12342)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Nico Martin Collins Moreno 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
Defendant stipulated to a factual basis in the police report. The probation report’s summary of that report stated that defendant and his codefendant (who is not party to this appeal) broke into the victim’s home while the victim was asleep. The victim woke and discovered the two robbers; the codefendant pointed a gun at the victim and demanded to know where his money and cell phone were.
The codefendant took cash from the victim’s wallet and disabled the victim’s landline phone while defendant stood by the door, acting as though he were a lookout. The two took the victim’s car but were later found and subsequently identified by the victim.
In exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges, defendant pled guilty to first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5(a))[1] and vehicle theft with a prior (§ 666.5).
The trial court imposed a seven-year aggregate prison term at sentencing: the six-year upper term for residential robbery, plus one year (one-third the middle term) for vehicle theft with a prior. It awarded 135 days of custody credit (118 actual, 17 conduct) and restitution to the victim along with 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/
Duarte, J.
We concur:
/s/
Butz, Acting P. J.
/s/
Mauro, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
