People v. North CA4/3

Filed 2/26/14 P. v. North CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048595

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11WF1969)

CASEY MICHAEL NORTH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Edward W. Hall, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Casey Michael North, in pro. per.; John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Casey Michael North pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), and admitted he had served a prior prison term of one year or more and had not remained free for a period of five years of both prison custody and the commission of the charged offense (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). After a long period of unsuccessful performance on probation, defendant was eventually sentenced to the middle term of two years, plus one year for the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior, for a total term of three years to be served in county jail. Defendant was given credit for 195 days of actual custody and 195 days of conduct credit, for a total credit of 390 days. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised the court he was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument in his own behalf, and he has done so, submitting a two-page handwritten brief. We have examined the entire record, and have considered the briefs submitted by counsel and defendant, but have not found an arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.