P. v. Musovich
Filed 3/5/09 P. v. Musovich 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sutter)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PETER RAYMOND MUSOVICH, Defendant and Appellant. | C059031 (Super. Ct. No. CRF080637) |
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.[1] Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
Defendant Peter Raymond Musovich was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, 290.018, subd. (b).)[2] Defendant thereafter entered into a negotiated plea of guilty to the charge in exchange for the upper term of three years in prison and the prosecutions agreement not to file additional charges for failing to appear with an on-bail enhancement. ( 1320.5, 12022.1.)
The trial court accepted defendants plea and sentenced him accordingly. The court also imposed a $600 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $600 restitution fine, suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45); and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8). The trial court also awarded defendant 30 days credit for time served. ( 4019.)
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. ( 1237.5.)
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.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] 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. (People v. 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.
[2] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
