Filed 1/23/18 P. v. Samuelson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Colusa)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIC PHILLIP SAMUELSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.


C084660

(Super. Ct. No. CR576503)


Appointed counsel for defendant Eric Phillip Samuelsen has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
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.)
In November 2015, defendant and his codefendants used the victim’s bank card to withdraw in excess of $950 from the victim’s bank account.
Defendant was charged by information with conspiracy to commit a crime (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)--count I) and grand theft of personal property with a value in excess of $950 (Pen. Code § 487, subd. (a)--count II).
On April 5, 2017, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to count II in exchange for dismissal of count I. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea as set forth in the probation report.
On April 26, 2017, the trial court denied probation, sentenced defendant to serve the upper term of three years in county prison pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), and awarded defendant 132 days of presentence custody credit (66 actual days plus 66 days of conduct credit). The court imposed fees and fines, including a $200 “base fine per . . . Section 489(b),” and reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution. The trial court subsequently issued an order striking the $200 base fine pursuant to section 489, subdivision (b), as unauthorized, and prepared an amended abstract of judgment consistent with its order
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we 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 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/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
HULL, Acting P. J.



/s/
MAURO, J.