Filed 6/23/17 P. v. Ely-Kirkham 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Placer)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICKY CLAYTON ELY-KIRKHAM, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


C083614

(Super. Ct. No. 62146220A)







Appointed counsel for defendant Ricky Clayton Ely-Kirkham, Jr., asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
While conducting surveillance of an apartment building, Roseville Police Officer Michael Ryland detained defendant after he attempted to leave when officers approached. Defendant was placed in handcuffs when another officer noticed the tip of a knife under defendant’s sweatshirt. A search of defendant revealed a concealed knife with a six-inch fixed blade.
Defendant pleaded no contest to carrying a dirk or dagger, a felony (Pen. Code, § 21310) and admitted serving a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court denied probation, sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years (the middle term of two years in county jail plus a consecutive one-year term, suspended under mandatory supervision), awarded 212 days of presentence credit (106 actual days and 106 days conduct days), and imposed the following fines and fees: a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 mandatory supervision restitution fine, stayed pending successful completion of mandatory supervision (§ 1202.45, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $459 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550).
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 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 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.



/S/
MAURO, J.



We concur:



/S/
RAYE, P. J.



/S/
RENNER, J.