Opinion
C085686
06-08-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN PETER MARX, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CM043774)
Appointed counsel for defendant Ryan Peter Marx 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
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In October 2015, Anna G. reported to police her vehicle had been stolen. About a week later, Natalie G. reported her vehicle license plates had been stolen from her car. Almost 10 days later, officers were dispatched to a parking lot at California State University, Sacramento based on a report that three people were attempting to open car doors. Two of the people were detained in the parking lot. The third, defendant, was found sitting in a parked vehicle. The vehicle was Anna G.'s stolen car and the license plates on the vehicle were Natalie G.'s stolen plates. A search of defendant revealed a pair of bolt cutters.
A complaint deemed an information charged defendant with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) with an on-bail enhancement allegation (§ 12022.1), and misdemeanor receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). Defendant pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property. The remaining counts allegations were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The trial court placed defendant on three years' formal probation and suspended imposition of sentence. The trial court imposed a $850 fine (§ 672; $200 fine, plus penalties, assessments, & surcharges), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), imposed and stayed an identical probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), and a $25 criminal justice administration fee.
In September 2016, a petition for violation of probation alleged defendant had failed to provide numerous urine samples and failed to report to his probation officer, in violation of the terms of his probation. Defendant admitted the probation violations. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation, conditioned on defendant serving 45 days in county jail.
In April 2017, a second petition for violation of probation alleged defendant had again failed to provide a urine sample as required by the terms of his probation. Defendant admitted the probation violation. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation with a Johnson waiver as to all past credits. The trial court also ordered defendant to serve 60 days in county jail.
People v. Johnson (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 183. --------
Probation filed a third petition for violation of probation in June 2017 alleging defendant failed to report to probation. Defendant admitted the violation. The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years. The trial court re-imposed the previously imposed fines and fees, unstayed the previously imposed probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), and awarded defendant 85 days of presentence custody credits.
II
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. 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/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Murray, J. /s/_________
Renner, J.