People v. Claybrooks CA3

Filed 3/18/16 P. v. Claybrooks CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079127

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F7707)

v.

CASANOVA ELIJAH CLAYBROOKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Casanova Elijah Claybrooks has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

I. BACKGROUND Parole officers searched the motel room in which defendant had been living by himself. In defendant’s bed, between the box spring and mattress, the officers found a plastic bag containing 0.51 grams of methamphetamine. The People subsequently charged defendant with possession of methamphetamine. The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of a serious or violent felony. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and admitted his prior strike conviction. Defendant also admitted that as a result of his crime, he violated his probation in an unrelated matter. Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years eight months in state prison. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded him 293 days of custody credit. Defendant appeals; his request for a certificate of probable cause was granted. II. DISCUSSION 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 review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 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.