1

Filed 7/10/15 P. v. C offman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

## COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
JESSE JAMES COFFMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. C078336
(Super. Ct. No. 13F7296)

Following his plea s of guilty to possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance for sale, and his admission of various enhancement allegations , the trial court sentenced defendant Jesse James Coffman to seven years in prison. Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable iss ues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal. 3d 436 ( Wende ).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief2

description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal. 4th 106, 110, 124.)
BACKGROUND In October 2013, officers went to an apartment to serve a search warrant and saw defendant leaving

. One of the officers search ed defendant and found 7.6 grams of methamphetamine in his pocket. Defen d ant told officers he was an addict and admitted
the met hamphetamine belonged to him (c ase No. 13F7296)

. Approximately five months later, defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by Redding police officers. He was fidgeting and appeared to be trying to conceal something. A records check revealed defendant had outstanding warrants for his arrest. Upon exiting the vehicle, defendant told the officers he had methamphetamine in his pocket. A search revealed a baggie containing 0 .8 grams of methamphetamine (c ase No. 14F1314)

. I n case No. 14F1314 , 1 defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (He a l th & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) , admitted a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon as an enhancement (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) , 2 and admitted
he had committed the current offens e while released on bail ( § 12022.1)

. In case No. 13F7296, d efendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled subst ance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and admitted the enhancement allegations that he had a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon ( § 1170.12) , and had served a prior prison term ( § 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties agreed the maximum sent ence the trial court could impose in both cases was 10 years four months.

1 Although the cases were resolved together, the notice of appeal is only as to case No. 13F7296. Accordingly, some of the documents for case No. 14F1314, such as the charging document, are not contained in the record on appeal.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

P ursuant to Proposition 47, the trial court reduced the conviction for possession of
a controlled substance (case No. 14F1314) to a misdemeanor. The court noted, and the parties agreed, this reduction correspondingly reduced defendant’s maximum exposure to seven years. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court also considered and denied
defendant’s Romero motion. 3 In case No. 13F7296, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, doubled to six due to the strike, plus an additional one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fund fine of $280, and imposed and stayed a parole revocation fine of $280

. T he trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $4 0 court security fee ( § 1465.8), a $30
criminal convicti o n assessment (Gov

. Code, § 70373) , and a $50 criminal laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) , plus penalty assessments. The trial court awarded defendant 233 days of presentence custody credit. In case No. 14F1314, the trial court
commuted defe ndant’s sentence to time served concurrent, and ordered defendant to pa y a restitution fund fine of $15 0, imposed and stayed a parole revocation fine of $ 15 0, and

a $ 50 criminal laboratory fee , plus penalty assessments. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
ANALYSIS We appointed counsel to represent d efendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and request ed this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende , supra , 25 Cal. 3d 436.) 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 elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the

3 People v. Superior Court ( Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

.4

entire record, we find no ar guable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RENNER , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

MAURO , J.