P. v. Dabney
Filed 12/2/09 P. v. Dabney 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE DABNEY, Defendant and Appellant. | C062292 (Super. Ct. Nos. SF111383A, SF111418A) |
In February 2009, defendant Willie Dabney entered someones home through a window, ransacked the home, and stole a television (case No. SF111383A). That same month, defendant pried open the window of a second victim, Fredrick M., in order to gain entry into Fredricks home and steal his possessions (case No. SF111383A). The following month, defendant pried open a window in the home of his third victim, Wayne U., went inside, and stole Waynes possessions (case No. SF111418A).
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459). In exchange, the remaining count of first degree burglary was dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
Consistent with defendants plea, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of three years four months, that is, the low term of two years for the burglary in case No. SF111383A, and a consecutive term of one year four months for the burglary in case No. SF111418A. The court awarded 64 days of presentence custody credit and ordered defendant to pay: a $440 restitution fine, a $440 parole revocation restitution fine, a $40 court security fee, a $30 government fee, and a $32.75 law enforcement fee. The court reserved jurisdiction over the issue of direct restitution. Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals. (Pen. Code, 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 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
