Opinion
C082297
03-01-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YEVGENIY IVAKHOV, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 62143398D)
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On January 23, 2016, defendant Yevgeniy Ivakhov damaged a Ford F-150 pickup truck in an amount over $400. The truck belonged to Automax Car Dealership.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to an amended charge of attempted vandalism (Pen. Code, § 664/594, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (2011 criminal threats) (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) in exchange for a maximum sentence of 16 months. The parties agreed that defendant could file a request pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
After denying defendant's Romero request, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for the low term of eight months, doubled for the strike prior. Defendant orally moved to withdraw his plea, claiming he was promised an eight-month sentence. The court reviewed the entry of plea hearing transcript and the plea form and denied defendant's oral motion to withdraw his plea. The parties later stipulated to $2,562.74 in victim restitution.
Defendant appeals. The court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
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. (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 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.
HULL, J. We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. HOCH, J.