P. v. Reeves















Filed 5/13/13 P. v. Reeves 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.





COPY

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Butte)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE ALLEN REEVES, Defendant and Appellant.

C071539 (Super. Ct. No. CM036116)

This case
comes to us pursuant to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by >Wende, we affirm the judgment.

We provide
the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the
case. (See People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On February 28, 2012, defendant
Jesse Allen Reeves broke into the home of Jennifer Russell and took
27 Vicodin tablets, 50 Norco
tablets, and 40 Tramadol tablets.
Russell had a domestic violence restraining order against defendant at
the time. Defendant left the residence
when Russell’s roommate told him to leave.


Defendant
pleaded no contest to first degree
burglary while another person other than an accomplice was present (Pen.
Code, § 459) and misdemeanor disobeying a protective order (>id., § 273.6, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four
years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 88 days
of presentence credit, consisting of 77 actual days and 11 days of conduct
credit.

Defendant
appeals. He did not obtain a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause.

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. (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 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.





MURRAY , J.





We concur:





BLEASE , Acting P. J.





MAURO , J.