P. v. MILLER
Filed 8/24/06 P. v. MILLER 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ROY MARTIN MILLER, Defendant and Appellant. | C051319
(Super. Ct. No. CM023839)
|
Defendant Roy Martin Miller pled no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d)) in exchange for dismissal of allegations he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to a midterm sentence of three years in prison. Defendant appealed, citing unspecified sentencing error. 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 review the record to ascertain whether an arguable issue exists, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In addition, counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date the opening brief is filed. More than 30 days have passed since counsel's brief was filed without receipt of 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.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
