(Super. Ct. No. NCR81169)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by People v. 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.)
Pursuant to a warrant, Tehama Interagency Drug Enforcement agents performed a search at defendant Michael William McCabe's home. In the course of the search, agents found over 20 grams of methamphetamine, digital scales, a glass methamphetamine pipe, a hypodermic syringe, a revolver, and ammunition. Defendant was not home during the search, and was later located at a casino and arrested there. Another 1.8 grams of methamphetamine was found in his truck. Defendant admitted the methamphetamine and the gun found in the home were his.*fn1
Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted the allegation that he had a prior drug conviction (Health and Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). The court denied defendant probation and sentenced him to a term of 16 months on the possession charge, plus three years for the prior drug conviction enhancement. He was awarded a total of 44 days of custody credit.*fn2 The court also imposed an $800 restitution fund fine, a $180 laboratory fee, and a $360 drug program fee. Defendant appeals, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error.
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL , Acting P. J.