Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. NCR78737, NCR78910
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
Counsel for defendant, Samuel Isael Ayala, 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 find no arguable error. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On February 7, 2010, defendant was driving his vehicle when he was recognized by a police officer. After confirming that a warrant for defendant’s arrest had issued, the police officer stopped defendant and arrested him. In defendant’s car, officers found a permanent resident card and Social Security card, both in the name of “Rolando Garcia, ” both bearing defendant’s photograph. Defendant refused to answer questions about the cards. Defendant was then put into the officer’s patrol car, where he offered the officer $1,000 “to let him go.”
Defendant was subsequently charged with bribing an executive officer, possession of a counterfeit seal, to wit: a Social Security card, possession of a counterfeit seal, to wit: a federal permanent resident card, and street terrorism. (Case No. NCR78910.)
On February 14, 2010, just before two o’clock two women got into an altercation behind a bar. Several men, including defendant, stood by; the men began shouting. Defendant and some of the other men shouted they were Norteños. The victim and another man came out of the bar and yelled for everyone to leave. The defendant went to his car, got a gun, returned to the fight, and fired two shots in the air. The victim told defendant to leave. Defendant pointed his gun at the victim and shouted “something about Nortenos.”
The police soon arrived but the victim refused to sign a complaint, saying he was afraid of gang retaliation. The police did not find a gun, so defendant was allowed to leave.
A short time later, the police received information that defendant returned to the scene of the fight and retrieved his gun from some nearby bushes. The police found defendant driving his vehicle and pulled him over. A search of defendant’s vehicle revealed a revolver and a box of.38-caliber ammunition. Police also found six bindles of cocaine, each weighing approximately.6 grams, and a police scanner set to the local police officers’ frequency.
Defendant was subsequently charged with the following felonies: assault with a firearm, discharge of a firearm with gross negligence and having a concealed firearm on his person, transporting a controlled substance, possessing a controlled substance for the purpose of sale, and street terrorism.
It also was alleged that defendant assaulted the victim with a firearm and discharged his firearm all for the benefit of a street gang. It was further alleged that defendant personally used a firearm to assault his victim and was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of his drug-related crimes. (Case No. NCR78737.)
Defendant entered a plea in both matters. In case No. NCR78910, defendant pled no contest to bribing an executive officer. In exchange, the remaining charges were dismissed. In case No. NCR78737, defendant pled no contest to assault with a firearm, discharging a firearm with gross negligence, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and street terrorism. Defendant also admitted to using a firearm both to commit the assault and while possessing a controlled substance for sale.
Defendant was then sentenced, in accordance with his plea, to an aggregate term of nine years in state prison. Defendant was awarded 325 days of custody credit and ordered to pay various fines and fees.
The trial court made no findings regarding defendant’s violation of probation in case No. NCR76741. Accordingly, defendant was returned to probation, which the trial court indicated would expire.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 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 have 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ, J., DUARTE, J.