P. v. Stuart

























Filed 3/25/13 P. v. Stuart 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(San
Joaquin)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY DEMONE STUART, Defendant and Appellant.

C072050 (Super. Ct. No. MF031877A)

Appointed counsel for defendant
Anthony Demone Stuart 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will
affirm the judgment.

I

A jury previously found defendant
guilty of residential burglary, receipt
of stolen property and obstructing a peace officer. (People
v. Stuart (Nov. 8, 2011,
C063335) [nonpub. opn.].) The
trial court sentenced defendant to six years in href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">state prison. (Ibid.) On appeal, this court reversed the judgment
and remanded the matter with directions to the trial court to conduct a >Marsdenhref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] hearing.
(Ibid.)

In August 2012, the trial court heard
defendant's Marsden motion. After listening to defendant's concerns and
defense counsel's responses, the trial court found that defendant received
competent assistance from counsel at trial.
The trial court denied defendant's Marsden
motion and reinstated the judgment and sentence.

II

Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking 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 href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">supplemental brief within 30 days of the
date of filing the opening brief. More
than 30 days elapsed and we 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.





MAURO , J.





We concur:





ROBIE , Acting P. J.





DUARTE , J.