P. v. Maciel









Filed 4/11/12 P. v. Maciel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL MORENO MACIEL, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

C068895 (Super. Ct. No. CM033485)

Appointed counsel for defendant Raul Moreno Maciel, Jr., asked 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).) We find no arguable error and no entitlement to additional presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment.
I
On May 28, 2010, defendant and two other Norteno gang members decided to shoot up the home of a rival Sureno gang member. Defendant drove up to the home in his car. A man then exited the car and fired multiple shots at the house.
Defendant pleaded no contest to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to an eight-year prison term, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 615 days of presentence credit (411 actual and 204 conduct).[1]
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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 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.



MAURO , J.



We concur:



HULL , Acting P. J.



BUTZ , J.

---