Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA066869, Gary J. Ferrari, Judge.
David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Onofre Serrano appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to selling/transporting/offering to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and his admission that he previously suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code § § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(d).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court struck the prior strike conviction and placed appellant on formal probation for three years under certain terms and conditions, including that he serve 541 days in county jail with credit given for 541 days. Appellant requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that during the early morning hours of August 8, 2005, in Long Beach, appellant sold rock cocaine to a confidential informant.
On September 26, 2005, appellant’s Marsden motion was heard and denied.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On October 26, 2005, appellant’s Faretta motion was granted and appellant was granted pro per status.
Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.
Appellant’s motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 was denied.
Appellant’s Pitchess motion was heard and granted in part.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On October 24, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Appellant was granted several extensions of time to file a response, the last being an extension of time to January 19, 2008, but no response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., SUZUKAWA, J.