P. v. Konopacki
Filed 1/10/07 P. v. Konopacki CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD CARL KONOPACKI, Defendant and Appellant. | C052550 (Super. Ct. No. CM024001) |
Defendant Richard Carl Konopacki was convicted of a prior offense in Tehama County Superior Court case No. NCR53944 on January 8, 2001, an offense requiring him to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290.[1] Defendant failed to register within five days of his January 24, 2005 birthday.
On January 31, 2006, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to failure to update his annual registration as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)) and admitted he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). In exchange for his plea a second prior prison term allegation was dismissed with a Harvey[2] waiver.
In March 2006, the trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in state prison for failing to register and an additional year for the prior prison term. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), suspended a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45), and imposed a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). Defendant was awarded 82 actual days and 40 conduct days for a total of 122 days of custody credit.
Defendant appealed. Defendant petitioned for and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
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 (1979) 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:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] People v. Harvey(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.
