Filed 3/14/18 P. v. Ortiz CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GILBERT ORLANDO ORTIZ, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F075597

(Super. Ct. No. F16901097)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dennis A. Peterson, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-


Appointed counsel for defendant Gilbert Orlando Ortiz, 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.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On February 7, 2016, defendant and another male were seen breaking into a drug store with a hammer. They entered and left a cigar display in disarray. Police responded and observed a car, driven by defendant, leaving the parking lot at a high rate of speed. Officers followed and attempted to conduct a stop. Defendant ran a red light, then finally stopped. In the car, the police observed two packages of cigars. Defendant, his codefendant, and a minor were all belligerent to the police and claimed gang membership.
On March 21, 2017, defendant pled no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460).
On May 2, 2017, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted two years’ formal probation, with 120 days in jail. The court also imposed various fines and fees.
On May 8, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.