P. v. Ortiz

Filed 8/15/06 P. v. Ortiz CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Defendant Jose Agustine Ortiz, Sr., pleaded no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a))^[1] and admitted that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In exchange, five related counts were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years, awarded 51 days of custody credit and 24 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay an $800 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), an $800 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and booking and classification fees. Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

SIMS , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.