IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
August 30, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
FREDRICK STRAYHORN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. Nos. 08F07712, 09F03281)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
P. v. Strayhorn
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On September 12, 2008, defendant Frederick Strayhorn was found possessing 0.85 grams of cocaine base. He pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in case No. 08F07712, and was granted three years' probation with a referral to drug court.
On April 28, 2009, defendant was found in possession of a useable amount of methamphetamine. He pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine in case No. 09F03281 and was placed on probation, again with a referral to drug court.
The trial court later revoked probation in both cases, deleted the referral to drug court, and placed defendant on four years' formal probation in both cases.
Defendant appeals both convictions. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause in either case. We granted defendant's motion to consolidate the appeals in the two cases.
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.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.