Filed 12/14/18 P. v. Reynolds 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Lassen)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRANDON SHANE REYNOLDS,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C087174
(Super. Ct. No. CC035071)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Shane Reynolds 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.) We affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings
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, 123-124.)
On September 15, 2016, defendant unlawfully possessed and carried a sharp instrument while he was confined in a penal institution. In September 2017, defendant pleaded guilty to violating Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a). During the hearing, the court struck a prior strike allegation.
Defendant was released pursuant to a Cruz waiver (People v. Cruz (1998) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1250 (Cruz)), to pursue acceptance into a treatment program. Defense counsel explained to defendant on the record that if defendant failed to appear for the next court date, he could be subject to four years in prison. Defendant said he understood.
The next hearing was held in November 2017. Defendant renewed his Cruz waiver and sentencing was continued until February 2018. The court again warned defendant that “all deals are off” if he failed to appear at the next hearing, and defendant confirmed he understood.
Defendant failed to appear at the February 2018 hearing. A bench warrant was issued.
In March 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for three years. The court awarded 89 days of custody credit (45 actual days and 44 conduct days). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine, suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).
Defendant filed a timely appeal and did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Discussion
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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 such communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL , Acting P. J.
We concur:
ROBIE , J.
MURRAY , J.
