Filed 4/20/17 P. v. Crownover 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yuba)
----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES CROWNOVER,

Defendant and Appellant. C083399

(Super. Ct. No. CRF160000715)



Appointed counsel for defendant Timothy James Crownover asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
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, 124.)
On May 15, 2016, Brandon Dozier contacted law enforcement about a friend’s stolen vehicle, as he drove around looking for it. He spotted the vehicle and was following it when he saw it was pulling over. Dozier attempted to block the driver in, while simultaneously getting out of his own car. Defendant was driving the stolen vehicle and, in an effort to get away, drove at Dozier who had to leap out of the way to avoid being hit.
Defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) in exchange for dismissal of the charge of unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754). The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years, awarded him 181 days of presentence custody credit (Pen. Code, § 4019), and imposed various fines and fees. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Id. at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
BUTZ, J.
We concur:


/s/
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.


/s/
HOCH, J.