(Super. Ct. No. CRF09-0036)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On December 4, 2009, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Manuel Anthony Ortega pleaded no contest to possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior serious felony conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (e)(1)) and the service of two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On February 22, 2010, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of two years, doubled to four years because of the strike, and added two years for the service of the prior prison terms, for an aggregate sentence of six years. The court credited defendant with 33 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 23 days of time actually served plus 10 days for conduct credit.*fn1 The court imposed $1,200 restitution fines in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.45. Defendant was ordered to pay a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373);*fn2 a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); and a $50 laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)).
The factual basis for the plea was stated in his written plea agreement. The agreement states that: "On or about 12/16/08 in the County of Sutter the defendant did commit a felony in that he possessed heroin in a useable amount with knowledge of both its presence and nature as a controlled substance."
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of 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.
The judgment is affirmed.