Filed 10/23/20 P. v. Bennett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091136 v. (Super. Ct. No. 19CF03446) CHRISTIAN DAVID BENNETT, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Christian David Bennett asked 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 will affirm the judgment.

I Defendant was identified in a video showing him break into a car parked on the victim’s driveway and attempt to use a garage door opener in the car to open the victim’s garage. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664/459)1 in exchange for dismissal of a prior prison term enhancement allegation

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and the trial court denied defendant’s subsequent motion to withdraw the plea.

At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for a second degree burglary conviction in a companion case (case No. 18CF00660), and eight months (one-third the middle term) for the attempted burglary offense in this case. The trial court applied all presentence credits to case No. 18CF00660 and ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees. Defendant requested, but did not obtain, a certificate of probable cause.

II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 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/ MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/S/ KRAUSE, J.