Filed 2/26/21 P. v. Torrance CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C091021 v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF186604) JOSEPH TORRANCE, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Torrance 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 convicted of a child molestation offense in 2003 and failed in 2007, 2009, and 2010 to update his sex offender registration. Later, in 2017, as Woodland Police Department officers were conducting a sex offender registration compliance check on defendant, they discovered defendant had not lived at his last known address for several months. The next day defendant left a voicemail with an officer indicating he was unhoused. He agreed to meet at the police department but failed to appear.

The People charged defendant with failing to annually register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, §§ 290.012 subd. (a), 290.018, subd. (b)) and failing to update his sex

offender registration (Pen. Code, § 290.013, subd. (a)). Defendant pleaded no contest to both counts and the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years with 90 days in county jail and 20 days’ time served. The trial court imposed two sex offender conditions over defendant’s objection, one prohibiting contact with anyone under age 18 and another prohibiting the use of encryption or password protection software that might change the appearance of dates or images. Defendant 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, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/ DUARTE, J.

/S/ KRAUSE, J.