Opinion
C085696
04-26-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL MICHAEL BOLEFAHR, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16 F 0007161)
Appointed counsel for defendant Darrell Michael Bolefahr asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated to a factual basis in the police report. We take the facts from the probation report's summary of that report.
Suspecting he was driving under the influence, two officers pulled defendant over. After defendant successfully performed several field sobriety tests, an officer asked defendant's permission to search the car. Defendant assented. The search uncovered opened mail and checks belonging to several victims.
Following an unsuccessful suppression motion, defendant pleaded no contest to felony identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5) and admitted to suffering a prior conviction for identity theft. In exchange, the remaining counts were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, and defendant would receive probation, serving no more than 180 days in jail.
At sentencing, the trial court ordered three years of formal probation and ordered defendant to serve 180 days in jail, but citing defendant's past offenses added, "If I could give him more, I would." The court also imposed various fines and fees. Following defense counsel's objection, the court struck proposed probation condition 16, which prohibited alcohol use and possession.
On January 8, 2018, appellate counsel wrote the trial court requesting corrections to the sentencing minute order (probation order). (See People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954.) Counsel asked that the order reflect that the alcohol condition was stricken, and that certain assessments were not imposed as conditions of probation. Counsel also requested modifications to various conditions. The trial court prepared an amended probation order reflecting the striking of the alcohol condition and that the assessments were not imposed as conditions of probation. The court took no action on the requests to modify the other conditions. --------
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, supra, 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/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Raye, P. J. /s/_________
Mauro, J.