P. v. McCaffrey
Filed 11/20/07 P. v. McCaffrey 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Amador)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS McCAFFREY, Defendant and Appellant. | C053468 (Super. Ct. No. 00CR0170) |
In March 2000, based upon defendant Thomas McCaffreys having been found in possession of methamphetamine during a traffic stop, he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and was placed in the deferred entry of judgment program (Pen. Code, 1000 et seq.).
In December 2001, defendant admitted being in violation of the conditions of his deferred entry of judgment and was placed on Proposition 36 probation.
After having been found in violation of probation for the fourth time (contracting without being duly licensed and being an unlicensed driver), the court reinstated defendants probation and ordered him sentenced to county jail for 210 days, with probation to terminate unsuccessfully after completion of his sentence.[1]
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 have elapsed, and we have 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1]At the probation violation hearing, Mark Rubin testified that he entered into an oral agreement with defendant to frame a house he was building, and to perform plumbing, electrical, siding and decking work on the home for a total price of approximately $80,000. Rubin paid defendant over $78,000, after which defendant abandoned the job. Defendants contractors license was inactive during the period he worked on Rubins home.
