Opinion
H037150
03-29-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUDRY WAYNE LAW, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1089208)
On October 12, 2010, defendant Audry Wayne Law pleaded no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court placed defendant on probation subject to the provisions of "Prop 36." Defendant successfully completed probation and on June 6, 2011, the trial court terminated probation. Defendant appeals from the conviction.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel requested and received an order of the superior court dismissing the case as required by Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (e)(1). Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has submitted a letter brief noting that counsel "has done what's best" yet he asks that counsel be relieved as his appellate attorney. The remainder of defendant's argument relates to matters outside the record.
The superior court's order was not entered until after the record was prepared. Counsel has provided a copy to this court. On our own motion we shall augment the record to include the order of the superior court filed December 9, 2011, in Santa Clara County superior court case No. C1089208, dismissing the case pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1.
The facts underlying the conviction do not appear in the record.
We have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Defendant's motion to relieve appellate counsel is denied because he has not shown that his attorney is providing inadequate assistance.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.