Filed 4/23/18 P. v. Ramos CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PEDRO JOSE RAMOS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069638

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1704745)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Anita P. Job, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2017, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Pedro Jose Ramos, Jr., with one count of receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a). The complaint also alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On December 8, 2017, defendant pled guilty to the charge as part of a negotiated plea agreement. On the same day and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in county jail, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), with one year to be served in custody and one year to be served on mandatory supervision.
On December 12, 2017, defendant filed his notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The factual basis for the guilty plea in this case was defendant’s admission on the record that on November 25, 2017, that he possessed a stolen Honda Accord.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


SLOUGH
J.