Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. Super. Ct. No. MF45044
Rex A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Levy, J.
On December 4, 2006, appellant, Wesley Allen Wrinkles, was driving a car in Merced when he was stopped by police officers because he had absconded from parole supervision. During a search of Wrinkles’s car the officers found several bindles of cocaine base, a bindle and a vial each containing methamphetamine, a glass pipe, a syringe, and burglary tools. Wrinkles was arrested on several parole violations and was charged with several new offenses.
On December 6, 2006, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Wrinkles with one count each of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352), possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377(a)), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), and possession of a hypodermic needle (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140). The complaint also alleged two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On January 29, 2007, Wrinkles pled no contest to possession of cocaine and waived a probation report in exchange for a stipulated middle term of two years, the dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancements, and a one-day pass.
On March 2, 2007, the court sentenced Wrinkles to the stipulated two–year term.
Wrinkles’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Wrinkles has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.