Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-549209.
MARCHIANO, P.J.
Ruben Garcia Madriz appeals from a judgment imposing a state prison term of three years after revocation of probation. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We have reviewed the record, conclude that no arguable issues are presented, and affirm the judgment.
I.
Police found approximately 58 pounds of marijuana, and firearms, in defendant’s bedroom.
Defendant with the assistance of counsel executed a waiver of rights in Spanish and understood his change of plea. Pursuant to the agreed disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), while armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). When the plea was taken, the court advised defendant that he could be sentenced to prison if his probation was revoked. In May 2009, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years.
Defendant’s probation was revoked in November 2010 after he pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), and admitted having suffered a prior drunk driving conviction. The probation report indicated multiple prior violations. The court listened to counsel’s arguments about sentencing. Defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison, representing the low term of two years for the marijuana offense, plus one year for the firearm enhancement. He subsequently applied for and received additional presentence credits under the January 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019.
II.
Defendant was represented by counsel. The record establishes that he violated probation and that he admitted the violation. There were no errors in the proceedings, including the exercise of discretion in sentencing. There are no meritorious issues to be argued or briefed.
We note defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5.
III.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Dondero, J., Banke, J.