Filed 3/18/21 P. v. Ferguson CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B307076

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA074337) v.

RUDOLPH FERGUSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed. A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________ In 2009, Rudolph Ferguson pleaded guilty to grand theft of property valued at more than $50,000. (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 12022.6.) He was sentenced to two years four months in prison and ordered to pay $56,000 plus interest in restitution to the victim pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f). Ferguson served out his sentence but did nothing about the restitution until the Franchise Tax Board notified him in 2018 that he owed $122,996.20. In 2020, Ferguson moved to revise the restitution order to exclude interest, which he argued he had not agreed to pay. The trial court denied the motion and entered a civil judgment payable to the victim Ferguson appeals from the order denying his motion to revise the restitution order. We appointed counsel to represent Ferguson on appeal. After examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) On January 11, 2021, we sent letters to Ferguson and appointed counsel, directing counsel to forward the appellate record to Ferguson and advising him that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. He has not responded. We have examined the entire record and find no arguable issue exists, and are therefore satisfied Ferguson’s attorney complied with his responsibilities. (Id. at p. 441.)

2

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.

3