Opinion
C082081
05-30-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PEDRO LOPEZ, JR., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. STKCRFE20150006329, SF131387A)
Appointed counsel for defendant Pedro Lopez, Jr., has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
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.)
Defendant possessed marijuana while incarcerated in state prison. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance by a prison inmate in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6 and possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359. It was also alleged he had a prior strike conviction for first degree burglary within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i).
On June 18, 2015, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance by a prison inmate. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charge and the strike allegation were dismissed. That same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve the agreed upon upper term of four years in state prison. Because defendant was serving a term of imprisonment at the time he committed the current offense, he was not given any presentence custody credits.
Defendant appeals. He did not request a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts 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 of the date of filing of 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.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. /s/_________
HULL, J.