Opinion
C091271
07-19-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY LAMONT COWEN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 19FE022328
MAURO, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant Jeffrey Lamont Cowen asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
On December 12, 2019, in Sacramento County, law enforcement contacted the defendant at his home and found that he unlawfully manufactured, produced, or otherwise prepared concentrated cannabis. The People charged defendant with possession and preparation of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (b)), and cultivation of more than six marijuana plants (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, subd. (c)).
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession and preparation of concentrated cannabis. In exchange for his plea, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges on the People's motion. Defendant waived time for sentencing and the trial court placed him on five years of formal probation. The trial court ordered defendant to serve an aggregate of 120 days in county jail, awarded him 13 days of presentence credit, and released him on his own recognizance with instructions to serve the remaining days in an alternate program. The trial court also imposed various fines and fees.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 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 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: HULL, Acting P. J., ARTE, J.