Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. 08F03727)
SCOTLAND, P. J.
Sacramento Police Officer Gerald Land berg was on patrol when he spotted a gray 2005 Honda Civic with a “smashed” windshield traveling in the opposite direction. Land berg made a U-turn and followed the Honda, intending to make a traffic stop. However, the driver of the Honda, later identified as defendant Ernest Abe Oglesby III, parked the car and got out, along with two other individuals. All three then walked quickly to a car wash about 60 to 70 yards away.
Officer Land berg did a record check of the Honda’s license plate number and learned that the car had been reported stolen out of Vacaville three days earlier. Land berg went to the car wash, found defendant and his two companions, and detained them. Defendant had a key ring with three keys on it, one of which belonged to the Honda. The other two keys were marked “GM” and “Ace,” respectively.
Defendant was arrested and charged with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one), receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count two), possession of a burglary tool (Pen. Code, § 466; count three), and enhancements based upon his prior conviction for a serious felony and his having served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) The People subsequently dismissed count three.
A jury then found defendant guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle (count two) but not guilty of vehicle theft (count one). The trial court found the special allegations true, dismissed the prior prison term enhancement, and sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in state prison, doubled to four years pursuant to the three strikes law because of defendant’s prior serious felony conviction. Defendant was awarded 360 days of custody credit and was ordered to pay various fines and fees.
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 of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL , J. ROBIE , J.