P. v. Frear
Filed 9/16/13 P. v. Frear 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM FREAR,
Defendant and Appellant.
C073162
(Super. Ct. No. 12F05323)
Appointed
counsel for defendant William Frear has asked this court to review the record
to determine whether there exist any arguable
issues on appeal. (
We affirm the judgment
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2012, defendant pleaded no
contest to second degree burglary,
admitted a prior strike conviction and the service of a prior prison term. In exchange for his plea and admissions,
defendant was to receive a maximum sentence of four years and the dismissal of
other charges.
On November
16, 2012, the court denied defendant’s request for the court to exercise its
discretion and strike his prior strike conviction pursuant to
years, doubled to four years because of the strike, and stayed the sentence on
the service of the prior prison term.
The court awarded defendant 189 days of presentence custody credit,
consisting of 95 actual days served plus 94 days for conduct. The court also imposed fines and fees as
detailed in the abstract of judgment.
FACTUAL
BASIS FOR THE PLEA
Deputies
from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department set up a trailer within which
was a spool of copper wire worth $2,000.
The trailer was alarmed and would signal if it was broken into. Defendant broke into the trailer, the alarm
activated and the deputies went to the scene.
There they saw defendant running from the trailer and captured him. Defendant had parked a Firebird vehicle near
the trailer. Inside the Firebird was a
copper air conditioning condenser which had been inside the car that was part
of the bait vehicle.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to
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 the filing of the opening brief.
More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication
from defendant. We have undertaken an
examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
We concur:
HULL , J.
BUTZ , J.
