Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA331742, Frederick N. Wapner, Judge.
Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Orange Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
On November 8, 2007 appellant Victor Mathieu was searched by the police and found to be in possession of PCP. He was then also under the influence of PCP.
Appellant was charged with possession of PCP (Health and Saf. Code §11377, subd. (a)) (count one) and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code §11550, subd. (a)) (count two). It was further alleged that the appellant had suffered three one-year priors within in the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b) and one “strike” within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1170.12, subds. (a) through (d) and 667, subds. (b) through (i).
On July 15, 2008, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pleaded no contest to all charges and admitted all the alleged priors. The court then struck the three prison priors and sentenced the appellant on the possession felony to the low term of sixteen months imprisonment, doubled on account of the “strike” prior, with total presentence custody credits of 361 days. Appellant was also ordered to pay a restitution fine of $200, a stayed parole revocation fine of $200, a court security fee of $20, a crime lab drug analysis fee of $50, and penalty assessments of $100. On the misdemeanor under-the-influence charge, appellant was sentenced to one year in county jail, consecutive, with no credits. Appellant timely appealed.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. Counsel notified appellant that he may request to have counsel relieved and that he may file a supplemental brief on his own behalf within 30 days of the filing of counsel’s brief. Neither of these events has occurred.
Having reviewed the entire record, we are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that there are no arguable issues that might be presented on this appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 276; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124 ; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUBIN, ACTING P. J., FLIER, J.