P. v. York
Filed 6/14/06 P. v. York 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL JAMES YORK, Defendant and Appellant. | C051220
(Super. Ct. No. CM023780)
|
Defendant Michael James York entered a negotiated plea of no contest to first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)[1] in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count (receiving stolen property) with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Defendant agreed that his offense constituted a violation of probation in two trailing misdemeanor cases (Super. Ct. Butte County, case Nos. SCR40303, SCR44556), and the court so found and revoked probation in those matters. The prosecution moved to dismiss another trailing misdemeanor case (Super. Ct. Butte County, case No. SCR44983).
For the burglary offense, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of four years. The court imposed a restitution fine of $800 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended an additional restitution fine in the same amount pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45). The court also imposed a crime prevention fine (§ 1202.5) plus assessments totaling $35 and a court security fee of $20 (§ 1465.8), awarded 48 actual and 24 conduct days for a total of 72 days of presentence custody credit, reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution, and recommended drug and alcohol counseling (§ 1203.096). In case Nos. SCR40303 and SCR44556, the misdemeanor cases, the court terminated probation as unsuccessful and sentenced defendant to time served. The court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss case No. SCR44983.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) was denied.
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 elapsed, and we 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.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
