People v. Trend CA3

Filed 5/22/14 P. v. Trend CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073792

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF 10-0760)

v. MODIFICATION OF OPINION UPON DENIAL OF BRYAN JAMES TREND, PETITION FOR REHEARING

Defendant and Appellant. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 29, 2014, be modified as follows: 1. At the end of the last paragraph on page 2, after the third sentence ending “we have received no communication from defendant,” add as footnote 1 the following footnote:

1

1. Defendant’s supplemental brief was originally due on December 26, 2013. On February 10, 2014, we granted his motion to file a late brief, due March 12, 2014. We received no further communication from either defendant or his counsel and filed our original opinion on April 29, 2014. On May 5, 2014, defendant’s counsel filed a petition for rehearing, claiming that defendant had planned on filing a supplemental (pro per) brief and that “the undersigned, counsel of record, believes Mr. Trend timely submitted his supplemental brief, but somehow the brief did not reach the court.” The rehearing petition attached an (unfiled) copy of the letter brief that counsel stated she received from defendant; accordingly, she “believe[s] Mr. Trend made an appropriate effort to file his supplemental brief on time and his supplemental brief should be considered in rendering the decision.” We decline to consider this unfiled attachment to the petition for rehearing and note that the request to consider an unfiled document, made nearly two months after its due date and in the absence of any actual evidence that it was filed, is not an appropriate use of resources by counsel. As modified, the petition for rehearing is denied. This modification does not change the judgment.

FOR THE COURT:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.