Opinion
C086357
09-18-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY STEVEN BOMAN, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17CF04139)
Appointed counsel for defendant Gary Steven Boman 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.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated to a factual basis in the preliminary hearing testimony. We take the facts from that hearing. --------
An officer responded to a report of a large transient encampment. There, the officer found defendant lying under a blanket next to a tent. The officer detained defendant. When the officer asked defendant his name, defendant said he was "Brett Boman." The officer wrote a citation with that name and told defendant to clean up the camp and leave.
When the officer returned to the police department, he learned the person he had issued a citation to was actually defendant "Gary Boman."
Defendant was charged with felony false personation. (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)(3).) During the preliminary hearing, defendant moved, under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b) to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. The court granted the motion. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to misdemeanor false personation. The court imposed three years of probation and ordered various fines and fees.
Defendant appealed. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
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.
HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: MAURO, J. RENNER, J.