Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super.Ct.No. 08F01517
SCOTLAND, P. J
In February 2008, defendant Michael Guther was on informal searchable probation. Detectives, familiar with defendant and his status on probation, conducted a probation search of his apartment. A male roommate who was behaving suspiciously outside the apartment was arrested for possessing rock cocaine. When the detective knocked on the door of defendant’s apartment, a female roommate answered and told them defendant was not home. They explained their intent to conduct a probation search, and she directed them to the bedroom defendant shared with his girlfriend. A detective obtained the roommate’s consent to search her bedroom as well. In a ceiling air vent in the bedroom defendant shared with his girlfriend, detectives found a baggie containing 32.7 grams of powdered cocaine. They also found 2.99 grams of rock cocaine in the other bedroom packaged in baggies.
Defendant was charged with possessing cocaine for sale and an enhancement that he committed the offense while on bail. He moved to suppress the seized cocaine. After hearing the facts we have related above, the trial court denied the motion.
At the outset of trial, defendant agreed to plead no contest to possessing cocaine for sale and receive a sentence of no more than the middle term of three years in prison. As the factual basis for the plea, the parties stipulated that defendant possessed cocaine for sale in February 2008. After explaining the consequences of his plea and obtaining a waiver of his constitutional rights, the court accepted defendant’s plea of no contest. No reference was made to the on-bail enhancement allegation.
Agreeing with the probation report that there was a large quantity of contraband involved, that defendant’s juvenile record was significant, that he was on probation when he committed the offense, and that his past performance on probation had been poor, the court denied probation and imposed the middle term of three years, finding the crime involved planning and sophistication. Defendant was awarded custody credits of 251 days, with 124 days of conduct credits, and was ordered to pay the minimum restitution fine (along with an equivalent suspended parole revocation fine), a court security fee, a laboratory analysis fee with a penalty assessment, a drug program fee with a penalty assessment, a crime prevention fee, a booking fee, and an inmate classification fee. He was also ordered to register as a convicted narcotics offender and to provide DNA samples.
Defendant appeals, without requesting a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 the defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We note, however, that the court’s oral rendition of judgment failed to dismiss the on-bail bail enhancement allegation, an implied condition of the plea agreement. We shall thus amend the judgment accordingly. There is no need, however, to correct the abstract of judgment because it properly does not contain any reference to the enhancement that was intended to be dismissed.
The judgment is modified to reflect that the bail enhancement was dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, J. CANTILAKAUYE, J.