Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. No. PCF236749 Patrick J. O’Hara, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
This is an appeal from an order for probation after defendant pleaded no contest to one count of violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a), felony vandalism. We will affirm the judgment of conviction and order for probation.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellate counsel for defendant and appellant Diego Paniagua has filed a brief in this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel summarized the record, stated that defendant had been notified by counsel of his right to raise any issues through supplemental briefing that defendant might wish to file in this court, and requested that this court independently review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal. We have done so. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
In the early morning hours of May 13, 2010, defendant and others spray painted graffiti on the buildings and grounds of Porterville High School. Police soon tracked down defendant through one of his confederates; defendant was arrested.
Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with count one, conspiracy to commit vandalism (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 594) and count two, vandalism with over $400 in damage (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). In an expedited case disposition, defendant pled no contest to count two. Count one was dismissed. The same day, defendant was admitted to formal probation for three years, conditioned upon service of 30 days in local custody, payment of victim restitution, and payment of various fines and fees. As a part of defendant’s plea bargain, it was stipulated that if the victim restitution was paid within a year, the offense would be redesignated as a misdemeanor.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, which stated the appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea and not affecting the validity of the plea.
On September 14, 2010, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief, as described above, raising no issues. The court, on the same date, notified defendant by mail of his right to submit to the court within 30 days any issues he wished to raise on the appeal. The court has received no response from defendant.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. That review has disclosed the existence of no arguably meritorious legal or factual issues in this case. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.