1 Filed 8/6/14 P. v. Rich CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. SHANE ALEXANDER RICH, Defendant and Appellant. C074247 (Super. Ct. No. CM037596)

Appointed counsel for defend ant Shane Alexander Rich asked this court to review
the record to determine wh ether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) Finding no arguable erro r that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.2 I Joseph Cesario, Michael Martin, Ryan Lorenc, Matthew Sarro and Michael Riehl were roommates in October 2012. At one po int on October 26, Cesario, Martin, Sarro
and Riehl were out of the ho use and Lorenc remained in the home taking a shower. While walking home, Max Nelson saw tw o men carrying property, including a flat screen television, out of the roommates’ house. One man was about six feet tall, wore a sweatshirt, and had a black backpack. Nelson thought the situation lo oked suspicious so he confronted the man carrying the televisi on set. The man drop ped the television and
both men ran off. Nelson we nt to a neighbor’s home a nd arranged to contact the roommates. Upon their return , the roommates examined thei r home and determined that Martin’s laptop computer was missing. Meanwhile, State Park Peace Officer Ja son Smith observed de fendant and James Beegle, Jr., on a nearby street. Based on their behavior, Smith believed they were intoxicated. Smith saw the men enter a nearby martial arts studio; he believed they did so to avoid him. Smith stopped defendant an d Beegle when they left the studio. While defendant was giving his identifica tion to Smith, three of the the roommates (who had been driving around the area l ooking for people matching the description provided by Nelson) saw defe ndant and Beegle and thought they matched the description given by Nelson. Riehl pointed at defendant and told Smith, “He just robbed us.” Smith searched defendant’s backpack and discovered a laptop computer which Martin identified as his. After defendant’s arrest, Nelson arri ved at the scene and identified defendant as one of the men he had seen leaving the roo mmates’ house and runni ng from the scene. A jury found defendant gu ilty of first degree burglar y of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 459) 1 and found true an enhancement alle gation that another person, not an

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 accomplice, was present in the residence during the commissi on of the offense (§ 667.5, subd. (c)). The trial court found defendant eligib le for probation based on the unusual circumstances of his youth and his insignificant pr ior criminal history. (§ 462, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of senten ce and placed defendant on three years of formal probation, with various terms and c onditions including 90 days in county jail and orders for payment of victim restitution, va rious statutory fines a nd fees, and attorney’s
fees.
II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record a nd determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we r eceived no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MAURO , J.

We concur:

BUTZ , Acting P. J.

DUARTE , J.