Filed 2/23/18 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROGER WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.
C084471

(Super. Ct. No. 15F02441)




This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
On April 16, 2015, Sacramento Police Officers Wollman and Schneider were dispatched on a call of a theft of a GPS-enabled iPad. Using “Find my iPhone” application, Officer Wollman tracked the iPad to an apartment complex which had eight units. Officer Wollman was able to narrow the area to four units and the officers began knocking on those doors. D.G. lived in apartment 340. Officer Wollman explained that he wanted to search her apartment for the iPad. D.G. permitted the officers to search her two-bedroom apartment. Defendant Roger Williams walked out of the rear bedroom. Officer Wollman searched the rear bedroom and found a loaded revolver in the closet on the upper shelf. The closet contained both male and female clothing. When Officer Wollman asked defendant and D.G. about the firearm, defendant stated it belonged to a family member. Defendant denied he had a felony arrest. Defendant later stated that he had been arrested for a felony but was convicted of a misdemeanor. During the investigation, Officer Wollman learned that defendant had been convicted of a felony. The firearm was registered to M.B., who was deceased. The firearm had not been reported as stolen. The iPad was not located in D.G.’s apartment.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer exceeded the scope of consent to search for the iPad. The trial court denied the motion, finding the officer did not exceed the scope of consent.
Prior to presentation of the evidence at trial, defendant admitted a Tennessee prior felony conviction for possession of cocaine for sale. At trial, the court instructed the jury that the parties stipulated that defendant had a prior felony conviction. A jury convicted defendant of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).
The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of five years subject to certain terms and conditions. Conditions included 210 days in county jail with 50 days of credit for time served. In response to defense appellate counsel’s request for correction of custody credits, the trial court modified time credits to 53 days (27 actual & 26 conduct) with the three additional days applied to defendant’s fees and fines since defendant was time served.
Defendant appeals.
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 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.



/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.


We concur:



/s/
Mauro, J.



/s/
Murray, J.