IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT Calaveras
July 7, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
DAVID ANTHONY GAMBLIN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Super. Ct. No. 10F4916
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro J.
P. v. Gamblin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant David Anthony Gamblin asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no entitlement to additional presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment.
On July 13, 2010, Calaveras County Sheriff's deputies stopped a van driven by defendant, who was on probation. Defendant consented to a search of the van and deputies found a large metal box wrapped in magnets attached to the undercarriage. The box contained 11.4 grams of methamphetamine.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and using a false compartment to transport methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years eight months in prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 121 days' presentence credit (61 custody and 60 conduct).*fn1
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed 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. (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 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.
We concur: HULL Acting P. J. ROBIE J.