P. v. Randolph

Filed 6/26/07 P. v. Randolph 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Colusa)

----

Defendant Jeffrey Franklin Randolph, who had been traveling with the circus and was found living in Indiana, admitted that he had in his possession a cell phone stolen from a home burglarized in Colusa County, California, on May 6, 2006. Defendant bought other property including a laptop and a camera stolen from the burglarized home but subsequently sold the property.

Defendant entered a guilty plea to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,  496, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of two years.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,  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.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

SIMS , Acting P. J.

HULL, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.