Filed 10/9/20 P. v. Chandler CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C088080 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17F2189) v. DENNIS CARL CHANDLER, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dennis Carl Chandler has 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 15 years in prison. This stipulated sentence included a 10-year term on the

firearm enhancement. On June 15, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea. Defendant appealed the judgment claiming the fines and fees should be stayed until the trial court conducted an ability to pay hearing. We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Chandler (Mar. 16, 2020, C088080) [nonpub. opn.].) On August 7, 2019, while that appeal was pending, defendant filed a motion in the trial court to “Stay and or Modify” the firearm enhancement term pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). The trial court denied the motion without prejudice while the matter was on appeal.

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. (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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ HOCH, J.

We concur:

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/ MURRAY, J.