Filed 8/16/17 P. v. Warren 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARVIN WARREN,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C083659
(Super. Ct. Nos. SF126203A, STK-CR-FE-2013-0009103)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Marvin Warren asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on this appeal from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 57. (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.
On November 22, 2013, defendant was subjected to a traffic stop while driving a 1995 Nissan Sentra that was reported stolen. Defendant identified himself as his brother and claimed he had purchased the car without knowing it was stolen.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)),[1] and providing false information to a law enforcement officer, a misdemeanor (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and admitted multiple prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed a five-year state prison term, suspended execution of sentence, and placed defendant on five years of formal probation.
Defendant was reinstated on probation after admitting a violation on November 17, 2014. After the trial court found defendant violated probation a second time, the court terminated probation and executed the five-year term on August 12, 2015.
Defendant filed a section 1170.18 petition for resentencing on the felony convictions, which the trial court denied on June 8, 2016.[2]
On November 15, 2016, defendant petitioned the court for modification of his sentence pursuant to Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. The trial court denied the petition on November 21, 2016, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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 (order) is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
ROBIE , Acting P. J.
DUARTE , J.
