Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR070503S
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the California Constitution.
Defendant Anthony James Sanders, Jr. pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced to three years in prison. Defendant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript and from a sworn “Statement of Probable Cause” completed by the arresting officer.
In the early morning on January 31, 2007, Eureka police officer Gregory Hill encountered defendant Sanders in the street. Hill ascertained that defendant was on parole. Hill searched him and discovered a small bindle of suspected methamphetamine and a small bag of suspected marijuana. Hill arrested defendant. The substance in the bindle tested positive for methamphetamine.
Defendant was charged by information with felony possession of methamphetamine (count one; Health and Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of marijuana (count two; id., § 11357, subd. (b)). The complaint alleged that defendant had incurred one prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12) and served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court denied defendant’s request to replace his counsel.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant waived his constitutional rights, pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, and admitted one of the prior prison term allegations. The remaining count and allegations were dismissed. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in prison for count one, plus a consecutive one-year enhancement for the prior prison term.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Defendant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to replace his counsel.
Before defendant entered his plea, the trial court confirmed that he understood the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering a plea of guilty. Defendant freely and voluntarily pled guilty to count one and admitted one of the prior prison term allegations. The parties agreed that the transcript of the preliminary hearing provided a factual basis for the plea.
The court sentenced defendant in accord with the plea agreement’s stipulated sentence. The abstract of judgment does not conform in certain respects to the oral judgment pronounced by the sentencing court. We will order that the abstract of judgment be modified to correct the clerical errors. (People v. Avila (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 416, 424.)
Appellate counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the court’s attention any issue he believed deserved review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The abstract of judgment is ordered corrected to reflect that defendant received a two-year midterm sentence on count one, plus a consecutive one-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and that $200 restitution fines were imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) and Penal Code section 1202.45. The superior court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and forward it to the Department of Corrections.
We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.