People v. Woodbury CA3

Filed 9/25/20 P. v. Woodbury CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, C090604 v. (Super. Ct. No. 17CF06242) STEPHEN WINFIELD WOODBURY IV, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Stephen Winfield Woodbury IV 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 Chico Police Officer Derek Ament was at an indoor gun range for target practice in November 2017. He noticed defendant at the facility and saw him fire a handgun and what appeared to be a rifle. Officer Ament believed defendant had a prior narcotics conviction that would make him ineligible to possess or use firearms. He contacted law enforcement and confirmed defendant had a prior felony conviction for a narcotics- 1 related offense. Defendant also checked a box on a gun rental agreement form at the gun range disclosing that he had a prior conviction that prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The People charged defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty as charged. In September 2019, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions. 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, J. We concur: /S/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /S/ KRAUSE, J. 2