Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Super. Ct. No. 07WF1888 W. Michael Hayes, Judge.
Beatrice C. Tillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
1. Introduction
Carolyn Rose Arian filed a notice of appeal after the trial court accepted her guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and her admission of one prison prior (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior convictions for violating Health and Safety Code section 11378. The trial court sentenced Arian to three years in prison, in accordance with the plea agreement. Arian received a total of 397 days of presentence credit.
We appointed counsel to represent Arian on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel suggested we consider two issues: (1) whether Arian was sentenced in accordance with the guilty plea and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Arian’s motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
We have received a copy of a letter, dated October 24, 2008, from Arian’s counsel to the trial court requesting the abstract of judgment be corrected to reflect 398 days of presentence custody credit rather than 397 days. We have not been informed whether the trial court granted the request.
Arian was given 30 days to file written arguments in her own behalf. We have not received anything from her.
We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.
2. Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court
An information, filed August 31, 2007, charged Arian with one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), the information alleged two prior felony violations of Health and Safety Code section 11378 and, pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), alleged one prior prison term.
Arian moved for new counsel pursuant to Marsden. The trial court denied the motion at the conclusion of a Marsden hearing conducted on March 21, 2008.
On April 28, 2008, Arian agreed to plead guilty and to admit the prior convictions and prison term. She agreed to the following as the factual basis for her guilty plea: “In Orange County, California, on 8-7-07 I unlawfully possessed a useable quantity (56.4 grams) of methamphetamine, a controlled substance, for purposes of sales. I had also been previously convicted of [Health and Safety Code section] 11378 twice, in case numbers 03WF1815 and 05HF0369. I was also sentenced and served time in state prison on 05HF0369 and did not remain free of prison custody or a new felony offense for a period of five years.” The plea form reflects Arian’s understanding the court would sentence her to three years in prison.
The trial court found “a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of [Arian]’s constitutional rights” and a factual basis for the plea. The court sentenced Arian to a three-year prison term, with 397 days of custody credit (265 actual days and 132 days of good time or work time).
Arian filed a notice of appeal on May 15, 2008. She did not request a certificate of probable cause.
3. Analysis of Potential Issues Raised in Counsel’s Wende/Anders Brief
Appointed counsel suggests two possible issues: (1) “Was appellant sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?” and (2) “Did the [trial] court err in denying appellant’s Marsden motion?” Neither possible issue has merit.
As to the first issue, the record establishes Arian agreed to a total determinate term of three years. The trial court sentenced Arian to a three-year determinate prison term.
As to the second issue, we review the denial of a Marsden motion under an abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 856-857.) We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Marsden hearing and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arian’s Marsden motion.
We have examined the entire record and have found no other potential issues. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
4. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, ACTING P. J., IKOLA, J.