Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ct. No. LA051133, Darlene Schempp, Judge
Victoria H. Stafford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
In a decision filed on May 27, 2008, this court reversed appellant Carl McNeil's conviction for possession of cocaine base for sale in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11351.5, based on instructional error. We remanded the matter for a new trial with instructions that, if the People did not retry appellant, his conviction was to be reinstated as possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, and he would be resentenced accordingly.
On September 26, 2008, the trial court vacated the Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 conviction and modified it to a violation of section 11350, subdivision (a). The court then sentenced appellant to an eight-year term, consisting of the upper term of three years, doubled pursuant to the "Three Strikes" law, plus two years for two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. On June 9, 2009, we advised defendant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or arguments which he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Specifically, in sentencing appellant, the trial court found in aggravation the fact that appellant had a criminal record dating back to 1983, which included convictions for, among other things, robbery and car theft. The court also noted that it had previously stricken one of appellant's prior strike convictions, so that his sentence was subject to doubling, rather than to a minimum term of 25 years. Based on these factors, the court sentenced appellant to the maximum sentence of eight years, two years less than the sentence he received on the possession for sale conviction, which thiscourt reversed on appeal. Thus, appellant received a sentence authorized by law, and this appeal must fail.
We concur: MOSK, J., KRIEGLER, J.