Opinion
C086388
08-02-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN MITCHELL AUCLAIRE, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 62154434)
As an inmate in the Auburn Main Jail, defendant Jonathan Mitchell Auclaire was in the "D tank." There, an officer saw him yanking a cord attached to the "clipper cabinet," a cabinet mounted on the wall holding clippers and razors for shaving. Defendant damaged the cabinet, and its repair cost $840.
In exchange for a promise that his term would not exceed six years and that he would serve no more than four years in custody plus two years of mandatory supervision, defendant pled no contest to felony vandalism causing $400 or more in damage. He also admitted to serving three prior prison terms arising out of three convictions.
Defendant also entered no contest pleas for misdemeanors arising from two separate cases, cases Nos. 62-154926 and 62-153813. The court ordered concurrent 180-day terms for those. Those cases are not part of this appeal. --------
The trial court imposed an aggregated six-year term, consisting of the three-year upper term along with three one-year enhancements for prior prison terms. The court then split the sentence, ordering defendant to serve three years in custody and three years on mandatory supervision. It then awarded 337 days of custody credit (169 actual, 168 conduct.) The court also imposed various fines and fees in addition to an $840 restitution order.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
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 (1979) 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 examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, J. /s/_________
Renner, J.