People v. Brunner CA3

Filed 6/24/26 P. v. Brunner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado)

THE PEOPLE, C104306 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR1906) v. KEVIN EDWARD BRUNNER, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kevin Edward Brunner 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 has not filed a supplemental letter brief.

Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2023, a jury found defendant guilty of attempting to burn a structure (Pen.

Code, § 455; count 2) and vandalism over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594; count 3).

In January 2024, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered three years’ probation. The court waived all fines and fees.

Between March 2024 and June 2025, the probation department filed multiple petitions alleging defendant had violated probation. In June 2025, defendant admitted to violating three terms of probation. The parties agreed that defendant would be sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of 16 months.

In July 2025, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison, as follows: 16 months on count 2 and 16 months concurrent on count 3. The court awarded days of custody credit.

Defendant timely appealed and the trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.

II DISCUSSION 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. (People v. 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 have elapsed, and we have 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.

III DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

/s/ MAURO, ACTING 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.