Filed 2/27/18 P. v. Vasquez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA LOPEZ VASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.


C085249

(Super. Ct. No. 15F02507)


Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Lopez Vasquez has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are 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.)
On April 23, 2015, defendant entered two different homes, both occupied, with an intent to commit a felony in each.
Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of first degree burglary and admitted an allegation that one of the burglaries was of an inhabited dwelling rendering it a violent felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21).)
The trial court imposed a stipulated state prison term of seven years four months, ordered various fines and fees, and awarded 912 days of presentence custody credit (793 actual and 119 conduct).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed 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 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.