Filed 1/5/22 P. v. Roff CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093508 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62172850 ) v. STEVEN JOSEPH ROFF, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Steven Joseph Roff 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.) Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2020, defendant twisted his 77-year-old mother’s arm behind her back and pushed her to the ground twice, causing her to fall. The People charged defendant with permitting an elder to suffer under conditions likely to produce great bodily injury or death (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)), along with two misdemeanor drug charges. The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of a strike offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)

Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of elder abuse. In exchange for his plea, the People agreed defendant would serve no more than four years in state prison.

The People also moved the trial court to dismiss the remaining charges and allegation.

The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s request for probation and, finding the aggravating terms outweighed those in mitigation, sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in state prison. The court granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining charges and allegation, and awarded defendant 492 days of custody credit.

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appealed.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court 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 Wende, we find no errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

\s\ , BLEASE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

\s\ , HULL, J.

\s\ , RENNER, J.