P. v. Jones
Filed 1/15/10 P. v. Jones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ORVELL JONES, Defendant and Appellant. | C061991 (Super.Ct.No. SF109537A) |
In September 2008, defendant Orvell Jones stole meat and liquor from a grocery store. Because he had a prior conviction for petty theft, he was charged with felony petty theft. (Pen. Code, 666.) It was further alleged he had a prior conviction for robbery, a serious felony (Pen. Code, 211, 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)), and had served a term in state prison (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
In November 2008, based on reports of mental health examiners, defendant was found mentally incompetent. Criminal proceedings were suspended, and he was committed to Napa State Hospital.
By March 2009, defendant was found competent to stand trial. He then pled no contest to felony petty theft. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in state prison, with a $200 restitution fund fine, a $20 security fee, and a $30 administrative fee imposed. The remaining enhancement allegations were dismissed. Defendants request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Defendant appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
ROBIE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
