Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Rosales CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098452 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CF04244, 21CF06516 ) v. JORGE RUBEN ROSALES, Defendant and Appellant.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2021, in case No. 21CF04244, defendant Jorge Ruben Rosales pled guilty to unlawfully causing a fire that burned an inhabited structure (unlawful fire case).

The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. The court imposed a number of conditions on defendant’s probation, including, as relevant here, that he obey all laws.

Three months later, in case No. 21CF06516, the prosecution charged defendant with failing to appear as required after being charged with committing a felony and being released from custody on his own recognizance (failure to appear case). In April 2022, the probation officer alleged that defendant had violated the terms of his probation by committing five criminal offenses, including the failure to appear, charged in the failure to appear case.

In November 2022, defendant pled no contest to failing to appear. The probation officer alleged three additional violations of the terms of probation in December 2022 and January 2023. In March 2023, the trial court denied probation in the failure to appear case and terminated probation in the unlawful fire case. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years in prison for unlawfully causing a fire, plus a consecutive sentence of eight months in prison for failing to appear. In both cases, the court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a stayed $300 parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 conviction assessment. In the unlawful fire case, the court executed a previously stayed $300 probation revocation fine. The court also sentenced defendant to concurrent sentences in three other cases that are not part of this appeal.

Defendant timely appealed from the judgment, indicating that he based his appeal on the sentence or other matters occurring after his pleas that do not affect the validity of the pleas.

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 (1979) 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 arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ ROBIE, J.

We concur:

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/ MAURO, J.