Filed 12/22/17 P. v. Miramontes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
REYNALDO MIRAMONTES,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. DF012613B)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, 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 Reynaldo Miramontes 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 May 23, 2016, defendant accosted and ran away from a correctional officer in a penal institution. He ran to the bathroom and flushed a dark object that looked like a roll of tape down the toilet.
On February 27, 2017, defendant pled no contest to destruction of evidence (Pen. Code, § 135, a misdemeanor; count 2) and resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 69; count 3).
On March 30, 2017, the trial court described the officer’s injuries as de minimis, and it sentenced defendant to sixteen months on count 3, to be served consecutively to his sentence in another case, plus a concurrent term of six months on count 2. The court imposed various fines and fees.
On May 15, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
Having reviewed the entire record, we find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Smith, J., and Meehan, J.
