Filed 1/3/20 P. v. Rojas CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PANCHITO FRANCISCO ROJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F079173

(Super. Ct. No. F18908653)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo M. Corona, Judge.

Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Panchito Francisco Rojas asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2018, defendant failed to stop for a stop sign while driving a stolen car worth $5,000. An officer stopped him and learned the car had been reported stolen.

On February 4, 2019, defendant pled no contest to the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted having suffered a prior conviction for the same crime (Pen. Code, § 666.5), in exchange for a four-year “lid” and an indicated sentenced of two years in custody and two years on mandatory supervision.

On March 6, 2019, the trial court denied probation and imposed the agreed-upon split term of two years in custody and two years on mandatory supervision. The court awarded credits and imposed various fines and fees.

On April 24, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.