Opinion
D076778
06-19-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ERNESTO COTA, Defendant and Appellant.
Karissa Adame, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCS308361) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed. Karissa Adame, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David Cota entered into a plea agreement under which the parties agreed he would plead guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted the amount possessed was greater than one kilogram (§ 11370.4, subd. (b)(1)). Cota also pleaded guilty to one count of child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated to a six-year term in custody.
All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Cota was sentenced to the six-year term as stipulated by the parties.
Cota filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Cota the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Cota was arrested at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. A search of his vehicle produced 18.8 kilograms of methamphetamine. Cota's 18-month-old son was in the vehicle at the time of his arrest.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error as required by Wende. To assist the court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that she considered when evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the sentence imposed violate Penal Code section 654.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cota on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. GUERRERO, J.