IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama)
January 24, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JORGE ROGELIO FIGUEROA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. NCR82759)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Figueroa
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Jorge Rogelio Figueroa has 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.*fn1  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we shall 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 October 7, 2011, defendant was stopped for a traffic infraction and found to be carrying nearly four pounds of marijuana in his van. He also had two bindles of methamphetamine in his sock. Defendant and his two passengers were arrested.
Defendant entered into a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) with a stipulated two-year sentence and an agreement to dismiss the remaining charges and complaints against his two co-defendants.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years, to be served locally pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(A). The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded him a total of five days of presentence custody credit. Defendant was ordered to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590 and to provide samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296, subdivision (a)(1).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE , Acting P. J. DUARTE , J.