Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 07F08243
NICHOLSON, J.
In July 2007, defendant Jose Emanuel Mata, along with an accomplice, broke into the home of Melissa Papers with the intent to commit larceny. Once inside, defendant and his accomplice stole “a number of personal items, including jewelry and electronics,” which were pawned for cash at a local pawn shop. Defendant’s fingerprint, driver’s license number, and signature were later found on the pawn shop receipt and he was arrested and charged with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The complaint also alleged a prior strike conviction under Penal Code sections 667, subd. (b)-(i) and 1170.12.
In exchange for a stipulated term of two years in state prison, doubled to four years for the prior strike under Penal Code section 1170.12, defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary and admitted the prior strike. Consistent with his plea, defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison.
The court also sentenced defendant to 10 days in jail for a pending misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence (case No. 07M08399) (to be served concurrently with the four-year term in prison), terminated his probation in an unrelated case, and ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim in an unrelated burglary for which no charges would be filed.
Defendant was further ordered to pay restitution to the victim in this case, along with various fines and fees, and was awarded 242 days of custody credit. Defendant 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.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., BUTZ, J.