(Super. Ct. No. 10F05733)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant, Marcus Leon Crockett, 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 concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.
On or about September 1, 2010, defendant possessed marijuana for the purpose of sale. Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant was previously convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), a serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), & 1170.12).
Defendant pleaded no contest to possessing marijuana for sale and admitted the prior conviction. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charge would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to the low term (16 months), doubled for the prior conviction.
Defendant waived referral to probation, was sentenced according to his plea, and was awarded 307 days of custody credit (205 days actual, 102 days conduct). Defendant also was ordered to pay various fines and fees. Defendant appeals; his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked 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 have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a ...