Opinion
C082624
12-21-2016
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 13F04546)
Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Davis has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In October 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) (People v. Davis (Oct. 29, 2014, No. C075669) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court found true defendant's two prior drug convictions and three of his four prison priors. The trial court imposed a split sentence, with two years in county jail and 12 years on mandatory supervision.
In December 2015, defendant was pulled over for driving a vehicle with expired registration. As defendant got out of his vehicle, he dropped a white rock-like substance that was wrapped in clear plastic. The substance weighed 9.9 grams and tested presumptively positive for cocaine base. A search of defendant's wallet revealed $120 in $20 bills, $20 in $10 bills, and $10 in $5 bills. Defendant was arrested for possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and taken into custody.
In May 2016, defendant admitted to violating the condition of his mandatory supervision that required him to obey all laws. The trial court revoked and reinstated defendant's mandatory supervision and ordered him to serve one year in county jail.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed, i.e., September 28, 2016. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Id. at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
MURRAY, J.