Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. SF110576A & SF111429A
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
On December 30, 2008, Stockton Police officers conducted a parole search of defendant Thaddeus Anthony Lavell Scott and found him to be in possession of 0.31 grams of cocaine base. In January 2009, in case No. SF110576A, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on conditions including Proposition 36 drug treatment.
Because both matters were resolved by plea, our statements of facts are taken from the prosecutor’s statements of factual basis for the pleas.
On March 31, 2009, Stockton Police officers contacted defendant and saw him throw a baggie to the ground. The baggie contained 16 individual bindles containing a substance that tested positive for rock cocaine. Additionally, defendant was found in possession of cash and pay-owe sheets.
In April 2009, in case No. SF111429A, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) In exchange, a count of resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148) and six enhancing allegations were dismissed. In case No. SF110576A, an alleged probation violation was dismissed and probation was terminated.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years concurrent with any time imposed for a parole violation. He was awarded seven days’ custody credit and three days’ conduct credit, and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) plus a $20 administrative surcharge, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant’s ex parte motion for additional presentence credit was denied. He obtained 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 requests this court 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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, J., NICHOLSON, J.