Filed 7/31/17 P. v. Rangel CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CRUZ RANGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

F072668

(Super. Ct. No. F15903825)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Timothy A. Kams, Judge.
Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-



Appointed counsel for defendant Cruz Rangel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. We find no arguable issues on appeal.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On June 21, 2015, a police officer observed defendant riding a bicycle in the dark without a headlight. Defendant consented to a patdown search. He advised the officer that he had a knife, which he handed to the officer. The sheathed knife had a seven-inch fixed blade.
On July 29, 2015, defendant pled no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310). Defendant provided an Arbuckle waiver, agreeing he could be sentenced by a judge other than the one who took his plea. (People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749.)
At sentencing, on August 26, 2015, a different judge rejected the plea agreement and offered to allow defendant to either withdraw his plea or accept a two-year split sentence. Defendant accepted the sentence. The court sentenced defendant to the two year split term, one year to be served in local custody and the other on supervised release. The court imposed one-year mandatory postrelease supervised custody, $300 restitution fines (§ 1202.4 & § 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues on appeal.


DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.