IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
October 14, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
ERNEST LAMAR BULLOCK, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF115145A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte, J.
P. v. Bullock
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Ernest Lamar Bullock has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We shall affirm the judgment.
Stockton Police Department officers executed a search warrant at defendant's residence and found, along with four children, several baggies containing a controlled substance, a pay-owe sheet, $13,032 in cash, drug packaging material, and a key to a separate apartment. A search of that apartment disclosed additional drugs, packaging material, and a loaded revolver.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine base for sale (count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (count 2), and child endangerment (count 3), and admitted probation violations in three other cases. Defendant's pleas and admissions were made in exchange for concurrent midterm sentences on all three counts as well as the probation violations, for a total aggregate sentence of four years in state prison.
The trial court awarded presentence credits of 392 days actually served plus 392 days for conduct, a total presentence custody credit of 784 days, and imposed various fines and fees as set forth on the abstract of judgment.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. NICHOLSON, J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.