(Super. Ct. No. 09F00865)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Ayana Packard 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.
A consolidated information charged defendant with smuggling marijuana into Folsom State Prison (count 1; Pen. Code,*fn1 § 4573) and possessing marijuana in Folsom State Prison (count 2; § 4573.6). A jury convicted defendant on both counts.
Defendant visited her husband, co-defendant Jaquante Packard, at Folsom State Prison on November 30, 2008. A correctional officer monitoring the visit on surveillance cameras observed defendant passing contraband to Packard, who placed it in his mouth.
Defendant admitted to an officer that she had passed three yellow balloons to Packard. Packard eventually expelled a yellow balloon containing 0.53 grams of marijuana.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years, including 200 days in county jail; the court awarded 31 days of actual credit.*fn2 The court imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 suspended restitution fine (§ 1202.44), an $80 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $60 court facilities fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $287.78 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and a $59.23 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 disposition more favorable to defendant.