P. v. Truong
Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Truong CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VIET DINH TRUONG, Defendant and Appellant. | C051780
(Super. Ct. Nos. MF027636A, SF093534A)
|
In case No. MF027636A, defendant Viet Dinh Truong entered a negotiated plea of no contest to unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1))[1] in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of five years.
In case No. SF093534A, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of five years.
Affidavits for an order to show cause filed November 7, 2005, alleged that defendant violated probation in both cases by making criminal threats. (§ 422.) After a contested hearing, the court found the allegation true.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of two years--the midterm of two years for unlawful possession of ammunition (case No. MF027636A), and a concurrent term of two years for being a convicted felony in possession of a firearm (case No. SF093534A). The court imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation restitution fine in each case. The court awarded presentence custody credits of 229 days in case No. MF027636A and 177 days in case No. SF093534A.
Defendant appeals. He did not request a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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 undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
DAVIS , Acting P.J.
We concur:
HULL , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Real Estate Lawyers.
[1] Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
