Opinion
C090257
08-11-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEREMY JAMES HOULET, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17F3892)
Appointed counsel for defendant Jeremy James Houlet asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
Following a theft and altercation with a security guard at a grocery store, defendant was charged with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Defendant pleaded no contest to the assault charge and the trial court placed him on felony probation for three years with 90 days in county jail and 25 days of presentence credit.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
The probation department subsequently requested, on several occasions, that defendant's probation be revoked due to probation violations. Defendant admitted some of the violations. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation with modified terms but ultimately terminated probation and sentenced defendant to two years in state prison. The trial court ordered defendant to pay $300 restitution and parole revocation fines and awarded 193 days of presentence credit (97 actual and 96 conduct). Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 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 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.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
HOCH, J.