1 Filed 10/29/14 P. v. Miller CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. BOBBY JOE DWAYNE MILLER, Defendant and Appellant. C074357 (Super. Ct. Nos. 13F00095, 13F00271)

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Having reviewed the r ecord as required by Wende , we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND Case No. 13F00271 On December 26, 2012, defe ndant took a vehicle withou t the owner’s consent and while driving this vehicle he pulled up to a landscape truck and stole a power blower.2 The owner of the blower gave chase and defenda nt crashed into parked cars and fled the

scene. Case No. 13F00095 On January 3, 2013, defendant took a bait car with the intent to steal it. When stopped, defendant was in po ssession of shaved keys. No Contest Pleas and Sentencing In case No. 13F00271 defend ant pleaded no contest to felony auto theft and misdemeanor hit and run. In case No. 13F000 95 defendant pleaded no contest to felony auto theft. On both cases, defendant adm itted a prior auto thef t enhancement for a December 18, 2008 conviction of auto theft and a strike e nhancement for a July 11, 2011 residential burglary conviction. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court imposed an aggregate term of eight years in prison as follo ws: for the auto th eft conviction with a prior auto theft enhancement in case No. 13F002 71 defendant was sentenced to the middle term of three years doubled to six years because of the strike; 1 and for the auto theft conviction with a prior auto theft enhancement in case No. 13F00095 the court imposed a consecutive term of one year (one third of the midterm) doubl ed to two years because of the strike. The court credited defendant with 112 days of pr esentence custody (56 actual, 56 conduct). The court imposed other fines and fees as set forth in the abstract of judgment.
WENDE REVIEW We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to Wende , requesting the court to review the record and dete rmine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days

1 For the misdemeanor hit and run conviction, the court sentenced de fendant to 120 days, to be served concurrently.3 of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a dispositi on more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MURRAY , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

BUTZ , J.