IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
December 7, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
SAMUEL LOUIS HODGES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F6693)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
P. v. Hodges
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On September 20, 2010, a police officer observed defendant Samuel Louis Hodges attempting to smoke methamphetamine and, during a search, found less than one gram of methamphetamine in his possession.
Defendant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) In exchange for his plea, the remaining enhancements were dismissed and it was stipulated that defendant would be sentenced to state prison for a term of six years. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with this agreement.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting the 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.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. ROBIE , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.