1 Filed 5/22/14 P. v. Trend CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. BRYAN JAMES TREND, Defendant and Appellant. C073792 (Super. Ct. No. CRF 10-0760)

MODIFICATION OF OPINION UPON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed he rein on April 29, 20 14, 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 defe ndant,” add as footnote 1 the following
footnote:2 1 . Defendant’s supplemental brief was orig inally 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, defe ndant’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 brie f did not reach the court.” The rehearing petition attached an (unfiled) copy of the lette r brief that counsel st ated she received from defendant; accordingly, she “belie ve[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 un filed attachment to the petition for rehearing and note that the request to consider an unf iled document, made nearly two months after its due date and in the absence of any actu al 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.

MURRAY , J.

DUARTE , J.1 Filed 4/29/14 (unmodified version) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. BRYAN JAMES TREND, Defendant and Appellant. C073792 (Super. Ct. No. CRF 10-0760)

Appointed counsel for de fendant Bryan James Trend has asked this court to
review the record to determ ine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) We find no errors and shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND On February 11, 2010, at about 4:44 p. m., an officer saw defendant and another person walking through a mote l parking lot in an area known for drug activity. The officer knew defendant was on parole; when de fendant noticed the patrol car, he and the2 other person tried to open one of the motel room doors. The office r contacted defendant and searched him, finding tw o plastic baggies containing a total of 0.6 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant pleaded no contest to posse ssion of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike and th ree prior prison terms (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667, subd. (e)-(i), 667.5). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of proba tion with Proposition 36 drug treatment as a condition thereof, striking defe ndant’s prior strike in order to do so.
Defendant admitted viola ting probation in Septembe r 2011. The trial court imposed a six-year state prison term, suspen ded execution of sentence, and reinstated probation. Probation was again reinstated after defendant admitte d violating probation a second time in August 2012. Following a contested hearing in Apr il 2013, the trial court found defendant violated his probation a third time. The tria l court terminated probation, executed the previously imposed six-year prison term, im posed various fines and fees, and awarded defendant 356 days of presentence credit (218 actual and 138 conduct). Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brie f that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this
court to review the record a nd determine whether there are a ny arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advise d by counsel of the 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 receive d no communication from defendant. Having
undertaken an examination of the entire re cord, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.3 DUARTE , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

MURRAY , J.