Court Opinion

ID: 9409304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 18:03:57.455082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.826283
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/17/23 P. v. Mangan 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097642

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 21CF05637)

           v.

 JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER MANGAN,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Christopher Mangan filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, 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.)

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       Defendant took a bicycle valued at $2,400 from a residential garage. Defendant
pled no contest to first degree residential burglary without a non-accomplice present
(Pen. Code, § 459) and stipulated that the court may derive aggravating factors from the
probation report, police report, and any declarations. At sentencing on September 29,
2022, the trial court found several factors in aggravation, no factors in mitigation, and
sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days
from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and
defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to People v.
Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

                                              2
                                    DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                               HORST, J.

We concur:

    /s/
EARL, P. J.

   /s/
DUARTE, J.

 Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                           3