1 Filed 3/28/13 P. v. Asencio CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. EDGAR STANLEY ASENCIO, Defendant and Appellant. C071831 (Super. Ct. No. 12F1616)

Defendant Edgar Stanley As encio pleaded no contest to conspiracy to transport cocaine to a noncontiguous county for the purpose of sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange, a count of attempted possession of a controlled substance (Pen. Co de, § 664; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351, subd. (a)) was dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to county jail fo r three years. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h).) Execution of the final two years was suspended and defendant was placed under mandatory supervision by the probati on department for those two years.2 Defendant was awarded 100 days’ custod y credit and 100 days’ conduct credit, and was ordered to pay a $760 fine (Pen. Co de, § 672) including penalty assessments, a $240 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) plus administrative fee, a $190 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) including penalty assessments, a $40 court operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373 ), and a $151 booking fee.



### F ACTS
Because the matter was reso lved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report. In March 2012, a confidential reliable informant (CRI) told a commander of the
local narcotics task force that an unknown Hispanic male from the State of Washington wanted to purchase a kilogram of cocain e for $20,000 to $25, 000. The CRI made arrangements to meet the ma le in Shasta County. While waiting in a commercial parking lot, the CRI received a telephone call from
the male who advised that he a nd two friends would arrive in a blue station wagon. Later that afternoon, a blue station wagon arrived. The driver, later iden tified as defendant, and two other males spoke to the CRI. Due to inclement weather, the males entered the CRI’s car where they conversed for about five minutes. When they got out of the car, defendant reached into the rear passenger area of the station wagon and showed something to the CRI. The CR I observed numerous bundles of United States currency in a vacuum sealed bag. At that point, defend ant and the other two males were placed under

arrest. A search of the blue station wagon re vealed $20,000 cash in the form of 10 bundles of $20 bills. A cellular telephone, a phone charger, and a Global Positioning System unit were found in the center console. A search of defendant’s person yielded an additional $1,000 in $20 bills.3 Following an advisement of his constitu tional rights, defendant acknowledged his participation in the plan to purchase cocaine.



### D ISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt 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 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 communica tion from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable e rror that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant.



### D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HULL , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

HOCH , J.