Opinion
C082327
01-24-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE DYMON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF15427)
Appointed counsel for defendant Ronald Lee Dymon asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having reviewed the record, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Defendant pleaded guilty to failing to reregister as a sex offender within five days of his birthday. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.012, subd. (a), 290.018, subd. (b).) He also admitted violating probation. In exchange, a second count of failing to reregister was dismissed.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
At sentencing, defense counsel asked the court to order probation, or alternatively to impose the middle term. The trial court imposed the upper term of three years. It noted in aggravation that defendant had numerous prison terms, numerous violations of parole, was on probation during the offense, had poor past performance on probation, and had numerous convictions; in mitigation, defendant had voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing at an early stage.
The trial court ordered a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $900 parole revocation fine, suspended so long as parole is not revoked (§ 1202.45), as well as a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court awarded four days of credit (two actual; two conduct) (Pen. Code, § 4019).
Defendant appealed. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the record we find no arguable issues that would result in a more favorable disposition for defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ, Acting P. J. We concur: DUARTE, J. RENNER, J.