Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Ventura, No. 2008017930, John E. Dobroth, Judge.
Lyn A. Woodward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
YEGAN, J.
Arturo Verdusco Bravo appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to transportation of a controlled substance (cocaine). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The cocaine was found during a search of appellant's person after a traffic stop. Appellant admitted two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior conviction of possession or purchase for sale of cocaine base (§§ 11370.2, subd. (a), 11351.5), and one prior serious or violent felony juvenile adjudication within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes" law. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Before appellant pleaded guilty, the trial court informed him that "the maximum state prison sentence" was 11 years.
All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise stated.
In sentencing appellant, the trial court struck the two prior prison terms and the prior "strike." It selected the low term of three years for transportation of a controlled substance (§ 11352, subd. (a)) and added three years for the prior conviction of possession or purchase for sale of cocaine base. (§§ 11370.2, subd. (a), 11351.5.) Appellant's aggregate prison sentence was six years.
Appellant's notice of appeal states that he is appealing from the sentence. A certificate of probable cause was not filed. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On July 6, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit by brief or letter any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On August 12, 2010, we extended the time to September 5, 2010. No response has been received from appellant.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., PERREN, J.