People v. Calderon CA4/3

Filed 6/23/15 P. v. Calderon CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050678

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14NF1901)

JOSE ARTURO CALDERON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. Elisabeth A. Bowman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Jose Arturo Calderon of two counts of 1 receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); counts 1, 2), two counts of possessing a completed check with the intent to defraud (§ 475, subd. (c); counts 3, 4), and one count of second degree commercial burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b); count 5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found defendant guilty of disobeying a gang injunction (§ 166, subd. (a)(9); count 6). The court imposed a two-year sentence on count 5 and concurrent two year sentences on counts 1 and 2. The court stayed execution of sentence on counts 3, 4, and 6 pursuant to section 654. The court ordered that defendant serve a divided sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5), whereby he would spend one year in county jail and the remaining year under mandatory supervision. Defendant appealed the judgment and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel initially argued that two of defendant’s convictions should be reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47, but subsequently requested that the court strike the opening brief because these issues were resolved in the trial court. In her operative brief, counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised the court she was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given an opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he did not do so. As explained below, we agree with counsel’s assessment; there are no arguable appellate issues. We affirm the judgment.