Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI021977, Erik M. Nakata, Judge.
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, Acting P.J.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In a felony complaint filed on July 11, 2005, defendant and appellant Victor Manuel Robles was charged with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 1) and receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a). The complaint also alleged that defendant served one prior prison term under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On August 18, 2005, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the prior prison term enhancement. Upon the People’s motion, the trial court dismissed count 2 under Penal Code section 1385.
On July 28, 2006, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years’ supervised probation on the condition that he serve 270 days in county jail.
On December 9, 2008, the People filed a petition to revoke probation. At the probation violation hearing, defendant admitted violating probation. The trial court found that defendant violated probation term No. 4 (cooperate with probation officer in a plan of rehabilitation and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer), and term No. 7 (keep probation officer informed of place of residence). The trial court revoked probation.
The trial court sentenced defendant to two years four months in state prison as follows: the low term of one year four months as to count 1, plus one year under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant appeals.
II
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli, J., King, J.