Filed 7/3/17 P. v. Ramirez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082628

(Super. Ct. No. 14F06791)





Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Ramirez has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On September 24, 2014, defendant and another individual approached the victim, a developmentally disabled person, and asked him about a bike and spray painting it green. The victim told them he did not have any green spray paint and invited them inside his apartment. Once inside, defendant yelled at the victim and accused him of stealing a bike. Defendant then picked up a chain and struck the victim in the back of the head, causing a four-inch laceration that required eight staples to close.
Police officers interviewed several witnesses and determined that defendant was a suspect. In a field showup, the victim identified defendant as the person who struck him with the chain.
After defendant was read his rights set forth in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694], he admitted to striking defendant with a chain but claimed he acted in self-defense. According to defendant, the victim pulled a razor and swung it at him.
On November 24, 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to willfully and unlawfully using force and violence upon another person, resulting in the infliction of serious bodily injury on that person. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years with various terms and conditions, including the condition he serve 240 days in county jail.
On June 28, 2016, the trial court determined that defendant had violated a condition of his probation by failing to obey all laws. On July 22, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years in prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



HULL , J.



We concur:



RAYE , P. J.



BLEASE , J.