Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. NCR68034 & NCR68571.
SCOTLAND, P. J.
On January 21, 2006, a parole search revealed 0.8 grams of methamphetamine in plastic baggies in the car of defendant James Gene Palmer, who had previously been convicted of transporting methamphetamine in 1996 and in 1998 and of possessing methamphetamine for sale in 2003. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted having three prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)) and having served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange, other allegations were dismissed and defendant was placed on Proposition 36 probation. (Case No. NCR68034.)
On April 20, 2006, defendant possessed a controlled substance. He admitted violating his probation, which the court then reinstated in case No. NCR68034.
On April 25, 2006, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possessing methamphetamine on January 10, 2006. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) Other allegations were dismissed, and he was placed on Proposition 36 probation. (Case No. NCR68571.)
On March 5, 2007, defendant admitted violating probation in both cases by possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on February 23, 2007. Proposition 36 probation was reinstated.
On April 28, 2008, defendant admitted violating probation in both cases by resisting arrest on January 11, 2008. When he was arrested, he admitted having used methamphetamine two days prior.
On June 9, 2008, the court revoked probation in both cases. In case No. NCR68034, defendant was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 12 years--the middle term of three years for the transportation of methamphetamine, plus three years each for the three prior drug conviction enhancements; the prior prison term enhancement was stricken (Pen. Code, § 1385). In case No. NCR68571, defendant received a concurrent middle term of two years for the possession of methamphetamine.
Defendant appeals in both cases, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL , J., BUTZ , J.