Filed 5/26/17 P. v. Ramirez CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RALPH LORENZO RAMIREZ III,
Defendant and Appellant.

A149627

(Napa County
Super. Ct. No. CR169776)


Ralph Ramirez appeals following a contested probation revocation hearing and sentencing. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In September 2014, Ramirez entered a negotiated no contest plea to a single count of first-degree burglary in violation of Penal Code sections 459 and 460, subdivision (a). Charges of unlawful driving or taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 and receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496 were dismissed. The parties stipulated that the case was unusual in order to make Ramirez probation eligible.
Imposition of sentence was suspended and the court placed Ramirez on three years formal probation. He was ordered to serve 365 days in jail with 224 days of pre-sentence credit. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. In light of his financial circumstances, Ramirez was ordered to reimburse only $400 of $1,200 in attorney fees.
A petition to revoke probation was filed in January 2015 because Ramirez failed to report to the probation department upon his release from jail. The petition was later amended to add an allegation that Ramirez failed to obey all laws due to his conviction in Solano County in March of 2015 for receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496.
In a contested hearing, the probation officer assigned to supervise Ramirez testified regarding his failure to report following his release from jail in 2014, and the Solano conviction was presented as documentary evidence. The court found both of the allegations were proven, and referred the case to the probation department for a sentencing recommendation.
Ramirez was on parole from Solano County at the time of sentencing. The court sentenced him to the mitigated term of two years for first-degree burglary, a serious felony, and clarified that his credit earning status following revocation of parole was 15 percent under Penal Code section 2933.1 as his counsel originally observed at the time of his plea. Thus, he was awarded 241 days of local pre-sentence credits, consisting of 209 days served plus 32 days of conduct credits. Reimbursement of his attorney fees was waived.
Ramirez appealed.
DISCUSSION
Ramirez’s counsel has represented that she advised Ramirez of her intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of Ramirez’s right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. Ramirez has also been advised of his right to request that his appellate counsel be relieved.
Our full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



_________________________
Siggins, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Pollak, Acting P.J.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.