Filed 2/18/21 P. v. Canes CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F080440 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CR-00552) v. JOJO CANES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Steven K.

Slocum, Judge.

Matthew Aaron Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jojo Canes asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND Although defendant had previously been convicted of two felonies and was prohibited from possessing firearms, she was observed both on social media and at a shooting range handling two firearms. On February 6, 2019,1 a search warrant was executed at an apartment associated with defendant. Inside the apartment, she was found sleeping on a bedroom floor. Two firearms found inside the apartment resembled those she had been seen handling.

On September 10, the Merced County District Attorney filed a second amended information charging defendant with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1).

On September 18, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden2 motion for substitute appointed counsel.

On September 19, defendant raised a second Marsden motion, which the court denied. The same day, a jury found defendant guilty as charged.

On December 6, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years. The court imposed various fines and fees.

On December 11, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

After reviewing the record, we find no arguable error on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

1 All dates refer to 2019.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

2.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

3.