P. v. Jennings







Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Jennings 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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. VANESSA JUNE JENNINGS, Defendant and Appellant.

C071784 (Super. Ct. No. 12F03291)

This case
comes to us pursuant to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by >Wende, 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.)

In May 2012
defendant Vanessa June Jennings went
into the Total Fashion clothing store and started concealing merchandise. When she was confronted by the owners of the
store, she punched them in the face and fled.
She was apprehended nearby with a stolen blouse. Defendant was charged with second degree
robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)

Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree
robbery in exchange for a stipulated sentence of two years in state
prison. She was sentenced in accordance
with the plea to the low term of two years and awarded 56 days of presentence
custody credits. A restitution fund fine
of $480 was imposed, as well as a $30 criminal conviction fee and a $40 court
operation assessment. Jail booking and
classification fees were waived.
Defendant’s request for a certificate
of probable cause was denied.

Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
requesting this court 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 href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">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.







RAYE , P. J.







We concur:







HULL , J.







MAURO , J.