Opinion
C058056
9-3-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRAIG ERIC DAVISON, Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
In November 2006, defendant Craig Eric Davison pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), based on an incident in which he attempted to discard a prescription bottle containing 6.76 grams of methamphetamine while he was being detained following a vehicle stop. (Case No. 06F09294.) He was sentenced to state prison for two years, execution of the sentence was suspended, and he was placed on Proposition 36 probation.
In May 2007, defendant pled no contest to two misdemeanor charges and was found to be in violation of his probation in case No. 06F09294. He was placed on formal probation for four years with various conditions.
In October 2007, defendant pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine, based on an incident in which he was detained on a restraining order violation and 7.16 grams of methamphetamine were discovered during a search of his bedroom. (Case No. 07F09724.) He stipulated that execution of a two-year state prison term would be suspended and he would be referred to the probation department to determine his eligibility for Proposition 36 probation.
Less than two weeks later, the probation department asked the trial court to find defendant in violation of his probation in case No. 06F09294 based on defendants conviction in case No. 07F09724.
At the sentencing hearing, defendants attorney explained that the two-year state prison term suspended in case No. 06F09294 would be imposed and that a concurrent 16-month term would be imposed in case No. 07F09724. After the trial court told defendant he was not eligible for a Proposition 36 disposition, defendant reaffirmed his plea of no contest in case No. 07F09724 with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a concurrent prison term of 16 months in that case. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.
Defendant appealed. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
SIMS, J.
BUTZ, J.