Filed 2/13/14 P. v. Rector CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098644 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR20212392) v. CLAYTON THOMAS RECTOR, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Clayton Thomas Rector, Jr., 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.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND In February 2022, defendant was charged with 47 counts of sex offenses.

Defendant pled no contest to one count of sexual penetration of a person under the age of

14 years (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (j)),1 three counts of lewd or lascivious act with a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a)), and one count of felony sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (a)). As stipulated, the trial court imposed: (1) the upper term of eight years imprisonment for the section 289, subdivision (j) conviction; (2) one-third the middle term for each of the section 288, subdivision (a) convictions (two years each for a total of six years); and (3) one-third the middle term for the section 243.4, subdivision (a) conviction (one year). Defendant’s aggregate sentence was 15 years.

Defendant requested that fines and fees be waived. The trial court denied that request because defendant had not “demonstrated the need for a waiver.” The court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $200 court operations assessment, and a $150 conviction assessment.

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause to challenge the fines and fees imposed.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 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 arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

\s\ Krause, J.

We concur:

\s\ Earl, P. J.

\s\ Wiseman, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.