P. v. Zazueta
Filed 1/21/10 P. v. Zazueta 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR ZAZUETA, Defendant and Appellant. | C062859 (Super. Ct. No. CM027122) |
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
A felony complaint charged defendant Arthur Zazueta with fraudulently presenting a $400 non-sufficient funds check at Feather Falls Casino on or about August 21, 2006. (Pen. Code, 476a, subd. (a).) Defendant waived a preliminary hearing, and the complaint was deemed an information.
On August 6, 2009, the charge was specified to be a misdemeanor, the parties stipulated to a factual basis, and defendant changed his plea to no contest. A trailing traffic case was dismissed.
The trial court placed defendant on probation with conditions that included a 30day jail sentence. The court also imposed a $100 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $100 probation revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.44), a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, 70373, subd. (a)(1)). The court also ordered defendant to reimburse the county $420 for public defender services, subject to defendants ability to pay. (Pen. Code, 987.8, subd. (b).)
Defendant timely filed this appeal.
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. (See 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.
HULL, 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 attorney.
