Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF124786A, Louis P. Etcheverry, Judge.
Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
This is an appeal from judgment imposed after revocation of defendant’s probation. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Counsel for defendant and appellant Willie Donte Brown has filed a brief in this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel summarized the record, stated that defendant had been notified by counsel of his right to raise any issues through supplemental briefing that defendant might wish to file in this court, and requested that this court independently review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal. We have done so. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
Defendant was arrested on September 5, 2008, in connection with a residential burglary committed that same day. Defendant and two others were charged in count two with violation of Penal Code section 460, subdivision (a), burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, together with other crimes and enhancement allegations. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, defendant pleaded no contest to count two as a serious or violent felony (that is, as a “strike” pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (see Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (b)-(i))) in return for admission to probation, a condition of which was incarceration in the county jail for a year. Pursuant to the plea agreement, imposition of sentence was suspended and, on February 4, 2009, defendant was admitted to probation on terms stated, including local incarceration for a year.
By August 31, 2009, defendant had been released from local custody and had been arrested for new crimes. Defendant was convicted on one of the new crimes (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) after a jury trial. On March 11, 2010, he was sentenced on the present offense and the new offense. As part of a total operative sentence of 12 years, four months, the court sentenced defendant to a consecutive term of one year, four months for the present crime of first degree burglary (one-third the middle term of four years (see Pen. Code, §§ 461, subd. (a), 1170.1, subd. (a))).
Counsel’s summary states the sentence imposed on defendant in the present case was doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. It was not. The sentence was that prescribed in Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
On August 17, 2010, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief, as described above, raising no issues. The court, on the same date, notified defendant by mail of his right to submit to the court within 30 days any issues he wished to raise on the appeal. The court has received no response from defendant.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. That review has disclosed the existence of no arguably meritorious legal or factual issues in this case. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
The abstract of judgment accurately reflects the sentence imposed in the present case. However, it omits a sentence enhancement imposed for the drug crime. In defendant’s appeal from judgment on the drug crime, we have directed the trial court to cause preparation of a corrected abstract of judgment. (F059867, filed Mar. 15, 2011.)