Opinion
C082450
01-13-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOU POO SAECHAO, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15F6119)
Appointed counsel for defendant Sou Poo Saechao asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
An information charged defendant with vandalism with damage exceeding $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)), alleged he had suffered four prior serious or violent felony convictions (§ 1170.12), and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant pleaded guilty to the vandalism charge, and admitted one prior strike and one prior prison term allegation, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of three years eight months. The trial court dismissed the remaining allegations. The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea was found in the police report. A copy of that report is not contained in the record on appeal, nor is there any other indication of the facts underlying the plea.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 months, doubled pursuant to the strike to 32 months, and an additional one year for the prior prison term enhancement, for an aggregate term of three years eight months. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $525 in direct victim restitution, imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), imposed a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the 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/_________
Nicholson, J. /s/_________
Butz, J.