P. v. Piper
Filed 7/29/13 P. v. Piper 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Tehama)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
COREY GENE PIPER,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072717
(Super. Ct. No.
NCR79895)
Appointed
counsel for defendant Corey Gene Piper has asked us to review the record to
determine whether there exist any arguable
issues on appeal. (
436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.
Defendant
was stopped for a minor traffic infraction.
A prescription pill fell to the ground when he got out of his car. After defendant consented to a search of the
car, an officer noted a female passenger trying to conceal something in her
purse. Defendant first said he would
take responsibility for whatever was inside the purse; it was then
found to contain a loaded
.380-caliber pistol. Defendant then said
the pistol was not his and his “mind was blown†over its presence in the
purse. Defendant’s passenger said the
pistol was under the driver’s seat, and she slipped it into her purse when they
were stopped. The firearm was not
registered to defendant.
Defendant
pleaded guilty to carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, a felony,
(Former Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1))
and the trial court placed him on three years of formal probation.
Subsequently
defendant admitted to violating his probation by failing to appear in court and
the trial court terminated his probation, sentenced him to three years in
county jail (§ 1170, subd. (h)), imposed various fines and fees, and
awarded him 289 days of presentence credit (145 actual and 144 conduct).
Defendant
appeals. He did not obtain a
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. (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.
The
judgment is affirmed.
DUARTE , J.
We concur:
MAURO , Acting P.J.
HOCH , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code. Section 12031 was
subsequently repealed and reenacted as section 25850.
