P. v. Madron
Filed 10/16/09 P. v. Madron 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Colusa)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORY BRENT MADRON, Defendant and Appellant. | C061598 (Super.Ct.No. CR45106) |
In 2005, defendant Cory Brent Madron pled no contest to felony unlawful use of an access card. (Pen. Code, 484g.) A preplea report reflects that after he no longer worked for an employer, defendant continued to use the employers fueling access card, running up $13,645 in unauthorized expenditures. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was placed on probation on conditions including that he report to the probation department, pay restitution and various fees and fines, and serve periods of time in jail and in an alternative work program.
Appellant admitted violating his probation in 2006 and again in 2007, by not reporting to the probation department and failing to complete work program. On both occasions, probation was reinstated. During proceedings related to the second reinstatement of probation, defendant waived previous custody credits, and the court suspended the execution of a two-year term in state prison.
In March 2009, defendant again admitted violating probation, this time by failing to complete his work program hours as agreed and by testing positive for marijuana. The trial court imposed the previously suspended two-year term in state prison.
Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. At the request of defendants appellate counsel, the trial court corrected the restitution fine, imposed when defendant was sentenced to state prison, to conform to the amount imposed at his initial sentencing. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us 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 independent examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
SIMS , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
