People v. Flanagan CA3

Opinion

Filed 7/21/26 P. v. Flanagan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta)

THE PEOPLE, C104283 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25F-2233) v. TIMOTHY LEE FLANAGAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Timothy Lee Flanagan 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.) We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2025, Flanagan knowingly received a stolen electric bicycle, valued at more than $950. Flanagan was charged with felony receipt of stolen property (Pen. Code,1 § 496, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a); count 2). It was further alleged that Flanagan had two prior strikes (§ 1170.12) and that there were aggravating factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 Flanagan pled no contest to count 1 and admitted a prior strike. The remaining allegations were dismissed. Per the parties’ agreement, the trial court sentenced Flanagan to prison for 32 months (the low term of 16 months doubled due to the strike). The court awarded 29 days of custody credit and imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked) (§ 1202.45). Flanagan did not obtain a certificate of probable cause on appeal. 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.) Flanagan 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 Flanagan. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Flanagan. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ EARL, P. J.

We concur:

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

/s/ MESIWALA, J.