(Super. Ct. No. CM033118)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Edward Aubain Rodney was permitted to withdraw an earlier plea and thereafter pleaded no contest to one count of possession for sale of hydrocodone. He was sentenced to four years in state prison.
Defendant's ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
In 2010 defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of sale of hydrocodone, a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and two counts of possession for sale of hydrocodone (id., § 11351). In exchange for his plea, it was agreed initially that defendant would be granted probation. The matter was referred to the probation department for a report, which disclosed that defendant had numerous felony convictions in Washington state. Based on defendant's criminal history, the trial court was unwilling to place defendant on probation, and defendant was permitted to withdraw his pleas. Subsequently, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of possession for sale of hydrocodone in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges with Harvey*fn1 waivers. On March 29, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to an upper term of four years in state prison. The court awarded 252 days of presentence custody credit (126 actual and 126 conduct).
The charges stemmed from two undercover buys of hydrocodone, one in which defendant arranged the sale and the other in which he conducted the sale. On another date, defendant had in his possession 40 hydrocodone pills and three oxycodone pills, and he offered to sell both substances to an undercover officer.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to Wende, supra,25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 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.
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: BLEASE , Acting P. J. ...