Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF0940
HULL, J.On January 21, 2009, a complaint was filed against defendant Julie Ann Buhr alleging transportation of methamphetamine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), making a false statement to a peace officer (count 3; Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)), and driving without a license (count 4; Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)).
On March 11, 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 3, with the understanding that she would receive a stipulated state prison term of 16 months and the remaining charges would be dismissed.
On April 13, 2009, the trial court imposed the stipulated term, with 14 days of presentence credit. The sentence on count 3 (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) was 14 days, to run concurrently to count 2. The court ordered defendant to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4); a $200 restitution fine, suspended pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45); a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373); a $190 drug laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)); and a $570 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)).
On May 4, 2009, defense counsel represented to the trial court that defendant had been sentenced on April 27, 2009, to serve 12 months in prison, with half-time credits, for a parole violation arising out of the present charges; counsel requested that defendant receive credit against the current sentence for all the time she had spent in custody. The trial court, noting that defendant’s parole violation was based in part on absconding, denied the request.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on May 6, 2009.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 346.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.