Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF10001771 Daniel A. Ottolia, Judge.
David Andreasen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI Acting P.J.
A jury found defendant and appellant Jose Aristides Rodriguez guilty of possession of a drug paraphernalia in a state prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6). Defendant thereafter admitted that he had suffered one prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior serious and violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A); 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). After the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss one of his prior strike convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, defendant was sentenced to a total term of nine years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2009, about 2:45 p.m., correctional officers were conducting a safety compliance check of a dormitory at the California Rehabilitation Center (the CRC) when Correctional Officer Brian Ellis observed a pen-like object in defendant’s right hand. Based on Officer Ellis’s experience, inmate manufactured syringes are generally crafted by using the clear tubing from ink pens. Drugs and drug paraphernalia are found about once a week at the CRC.
Because defendant raised Officer Ellis’s suspicions, Officer Ellis ordered defendant to place his hands on top of locker 13. At that time, Officer Ellis observed defendant discard the inmate manufactured syringe behind locker 14. Officer Ellis thereafter handcuffed defendant and retrieved the manufactured syringe. The manufactured syringe did not contain any residue or liquid. Two spoons, containing a residue that could be consistent with heroin use were found on the top of locker 14. However, no heroin or cotton, which is commonly used as part of the injection process, was discovered.
A medical evaluation of defendant at 3:00 p.m. revealed two recent puncture marks on defendant’s left arm. In addition, defendant’s speech was slurred.
Defendant denied having anything in his hands or possessing the manufactured syringe. He claimed the puncture wounds were received a “couple days before.” Defendant acknowledged that his urine ‘tested positive.”
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MILLER J., CODRINGTON J.