Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Nos. SCD202325 & SCD200785, Charles G. Rogers, Judge.
IRION, J.
In superior court case No. SCD202325, Gordon Alexander Tate entered a negotiated guilty plea to selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and admitted he had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
In superior court case No. SCD200785, Tate entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and to one count of driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). Tate also admitted his prior strike conviction.
The latter possession count was a lesser-included offense of unlawfully transporting cocaine base for nonpersonal use (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) This offense took place on a different day than the other possession count.
Under the plea agreements, Tate would receive a stipulated six-year prison sentence in superior court case No. SCD202325 and a consecutive 32-month prison term in superior court case No. SCD200785, for an aggregate term of eight years and eight months. The district attorney also agreed not to file a pending drug case.
The trial court sentenced Tate to eight years and eight months in prison as stipulated in the plea agreement. The court denied Tate's request for a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion and imposed an improper sentence; (2) whether Tate was properly awarded available custody credits; (3) whether the probation report included improper material; (4) whether Tate received ineffective representation of counsel; (5) whether the court erred in denying Tate's Marsden (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) motions; (6) whether the determination of restitution was incorrect; (7) whether the court was unaware of its authority to impose the lower term; and (8) whether Tate's waivers were knowing and intelligent.
We granted Tate permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Tate on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, Acting P. J. AARON, J.