Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County, No. 1287751 of Santa Barbara, James F. Iwasko, Judge.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PERREN, J.
Marcus Dewayne Sharber appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced him to two years in state prison. In exchange for appellant’s plea, counts charging possession of cocaine base for sale (§ 11351.5) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) were dismissed, along with allegations that he had suffered a prior drug-related conviction (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(24)), and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
On August 14, 2008, Lompoc Police officers executed a search warrant at a motel room rented by appellant’s girlfriend. Appellant was not present at the time of the search. Methamphetamine, cocaine, cocaine base, as scale, packaging material, and cash were found inside the room. The officers also found men’s clothing and receipts with appellant’s name on the men. Appellant was later arrested at a nearby restaurant.
After appellant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause to challenge his guilty plea on grounds of coercion and misrepresentation. We subsequently appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On December 21, 2009, we sent a letter to appellant at Wasco State Prison advising him that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. The letter was returned as undeliverable with a notation stating that appellant was paroled on November 16, 2009. Appointed counsel was contacted and gave us appellant’s most recent home address. On March 18, 2010, the letter we sent to that address was also returned as undeliverable. Appointed counsel does not have any other forwarding address for appellant.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., YEGAN, J.