P. v. Dorr
Filed 3/12/07 P. v. Dorr 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Placer)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL JAMES DORR, Defendant and Appellant. | C052812 (Super. Ct. No. 62056917) |
Defendant Michael James Dorr pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and admitted a prior strike. In accordance with the stipulated sentence, the trial court sentenced defendant to the lower term of 16 months, which was doubled by the strike to 32 months. The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4), stayed a $200 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, 1202.45), and imposed a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8). Defendant was awarded 127 actual days and 62 conduct days for a total of 189 days of custody credit.
Defendant appealed. Defendant petitioned for and was denied a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.)
The facts are taken from the factual basis of his plea. Approximately $1,800 worth of windows were stolen in Sacramento County. On December 22, 2005, defendant and a confederate went to Meeks in Rocklin to return the stolen windows, claiming they were duplicates ordered in error. On the next day, defendant came back to Meeks to pick up a check for the windows.
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.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
MORRISON , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
