Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. T070085F
SCOTLAND, P. J.
In January 2007, a commercial freight truck stopped at a California Highway Patrol (CHP) inspection facility near Truckee for a safety inspection. The driver presented his driver’s license, tractor registration, and a temporary operating permit with an expiration date of November 2006.
CHP contacted the owner of the truck and requested a valid operating permit. The owner, defendant Harjit S. Bhambra, said he would fax to CHP a copy of a temporary operating permit valid through February 2007. CHP received a faxed copy of a temporary operating permit that was illegible, in that the relevant dates, vehicle identification number, and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office codes could not be read or confirmed. CHP then determined that the temporary operating permit was a forgery and that registration fees were outstanding. DMV had not issued a temporary operating permit, because of fees that were due. The truck was impounded.
A jury convicted defendant of possessing a forged and false temporary registration document that purported to be issued by DMV. (Veh. Code, § 4463, subd. (a)(2).) A count of operating a commercial vehicle in excess of its registered declared gross weight (Veh. Code, § 4000.6, subd. (d)) was dismissed in the interest of justice.
Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for three years on the conditions, among others, that he serve 60 days of incarceration and pay a $500 fine plus penalty assessments, a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code,§ 1202.44), a $35 installment account fee (Pen. Code, § 1205, subd. (d)), and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant 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 undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, J. BUTZ, J.