Opinion
E053357
08-01-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODD BULLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1102002)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Harry A. Staley, Judge. (Retired judge of the Kern Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Todd Bullock appeals his conviction after a guilty plea to drug possession charges.
On April 6, 2011, Bullock was arrested for possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. On April 8, 2011, the People charged Bullock in a felony complaint with one count of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). The People also alleged two prior convictions for drug possession, in 2006 and 2008, for purposes of Penal Code, section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On April 8, 2011, Bullock pled guilty to the face of the complaint in exchange for three years of probation and reinstatement to his Proposition 36 probation, with the understanding that this would be the last time Bullock would be reinstated.
Bullock appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered Bullock an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The conviction is affirmed.
RAMIREZ, P.J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST, J. RICHLI, J.