Filed 8/8/17 P. v. Chavez CA2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JIMMY CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083663

(Super. Ct. No. 14F08377)






This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide a summary of defendant Jimmy Chavez’s offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
A felony complaint deemed an information charged defendant with two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) As to both counts, it was alleged that defendant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).)
Following the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5), defendant entered a plea of no contest to count 1, admitted the firearm use allegation, and admitted that the offense was a serious felony and a strike, in return for the dismissal of the balance of the charging document and a stipulated state prison sentence of 12 years (two years, the low term, on count 1, plus 10 years on the enhancement). The prosecutor stated the factual basis of the plea as follows: “On or about December 22nd, 2014, here in the County of Sacramento, [defendant] committed a felony violation of Penal Code Section 211, robbery in the second degree, in that [defendant] did unlawfully and by means of force and fear take the personal property from the person . . . and immediate possession of [K.J.] [¶] Additionally, in the process of that robbery [defendant] personally used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code Section 12022.53[, subdivision] (b). [¶] In particular, on that day [defendant] set up to buy two cell phones at a Raley’s in Elk Grove. When he arrived there he drew and exhibited a firearm and demanded the cell phone from [K.J.] He obtained the cell phone. [¶] The car was stopped later in Elk Grove where [defendant] was identified as having that gun. [K.J.] arrived on scene and identified [defendant] as the robber, and the gun was recovered.”
The trial court thereafter imposed the stipulated 12-year state prison sentence. The court awarded defendant 437 days of presentence custody credit (380 actual days and 57 conduct days). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant appeals. 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, 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 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:



ROBIE , Acting P. J.



DUARTE , J.