Filed 4/12/22 P. v. Pierce CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Aaron James Pierce appeals from the judgment entered after his guilty plea to second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)). Appellant pried open the front door of a business, entered the premises, and took $200 in cash and other property. The trial court dismissed a charge of attempted second degree burglary of another business. Appellant was sentenced to Ventura County Jail for the low term of 16 months. He was ordered to pay victim restitution of $2,980 for damage he had caused to three doors. The trial court denied his request “to modify sentence with Mandatory Supervision terms.”

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

On March 2, 2022, we mailed a notice to appellant at the Ventura County jail. The notice stated, “Within 30 days of the date of this notice, appellant may submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments which appellant wishes this court to consider.”

Appellant mailed us a letter that we received on March 17, 2022. We did not file the letter. We returned it to appellant because he had not served a copy on the Attorney General and superior court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25.) In the letter appellant declared, “[P]ursuant to my ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990] (1) physical, (2) psych[ological], and (3) substance disabilities and my equal rights 14th amendment right I am requesting 90 day early release to R-Mac Board and care home and 2/3 time conduct credits.” If the letter had been properly served on the Attorney General and superior court, appellant’s request would have been forfeited because it is not supported by meaningful argument with citation to authority and facts in the record on appeal. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.)

After examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that counsel has complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

Patricia M. Murphy, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.