From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Carey

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
Sep 20, 2011
C067597 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2011)

Opinion

C067597

09-20-2011

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES ANTHONY CAREY, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CM033107)

On September 24, 2010, at about 12:30 p.m., defendant Charles Anthony Carey was seen repeatedly entering an unlocked truck. He was detained by an Oroville police officer and found possessing a flashlight, a screwdriver, and two packages of cigarettes. The owner of the pickup said the cigarettes were similar to those he kept in the truck, and defendant did not have permission to enter the truck.

Defendant pled no contest to attempted second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664/459) and admitted one strike and two prior prison term allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to a five-year prison term, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 189 days' presentence credit (127 custody and 62 conduct).

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court 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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. We concur:

HULL, J.

HOCH, J.


Summaries of

People v. Carey

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
Sep 20, 2011
C067597 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES ANTHONY CAREY, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

Date published: Sep 20, 2011

Citations

C067597 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2011)