Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. NCR73075
SCOTLAND, P. J.
Defendant Robert Edward Bevens was convicted in July 2004 of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) He was granted probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 180 days in county jail, and was required to register as a sex offender.
In August 2007, one month after he successfully completed probation, police officers went to defendant’s home to verify his compliance with the sex offender registration requirement. Defendant, who was home with his four-year-old son, was under the influence of methamphetamine, which he admitted having just smoked. He was also in possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and various drug paraphernalia. Officers found three rifles, a loaded handgun, and boxes of ammunition in an open bedroom closet to which defendant admitted having access.
Defendant pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted having a prior serious conviction, and other charges against him were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. On July 29, 2008, probation was denied, and defendant was sentenced to the upper term of three years, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law, for an aggregate term of six years in state prison. The court imposed fees and fines as recommended in the probation report. At defendant’s request by postsentence letter dated October 17, 2008, the court amended the abstract of judgment to include the breakdown of the fees and fines as set forth in the attachment to the probation report. (People v. High (2004)119 Cal.App.4th 1192.)
In imposing the upper term, the court found that factors in aggravation outweighed those in mitigation; “[t]here was a four-year-old present in the home at the time that this event occurred,” and, “given the statements of the Defendant and the facts surrounding the offense, it does appear that [he] did have access to firearms, and therefore was armed.
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.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL, J., BUTZ, J.