Filed 6/10/15 P. v. Wilkinson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication o r ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVID WILKINSON,

Defendant and Appellant. B258264

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. SA074471, SA076443)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark E. Windham, Judge. Affirmed.

Sarah Ann Stockwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2 Defendant David Wilkinson was charge d with one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), as well as having served two prior prison terms and havi ng nine prior felony convicti ons (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 1203, subd. (e)(4)) (t he 2010 case No. SA074471). On June 29, 2010, defendant entered a no contest plea, admitting the ch arged felony and tw o prior prison term

enhancements. Defendant was sentenced to fi ve years in state prison, consisting of the upper term of three years for the drug possession, and two years for the prison priors. The court suspended the execution of sentence an d placed defendant on three years formal probation, on the condition that he participat e in a 180-day residential treatment program, among other conditions. Defendant violated the terms of his probation three times, and his probation was revoked and reinstated each time. The trial court also extended defendant’s probation by 12 months. On January 13, 2011, defe ndant was charged with a new count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), as well as having served two prior prison terms and ha ving 10 prior felony convicti ons (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 1203, subd. (e)(4)) (the 2011 case No. SA076443 ). On February 15, 2011, defendant entered a no contest plea and admitte d one prison prior. On August 22, 2011, the

trial court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison, c onsisting of the upper term of three years for the drug possession and one year for the enhancement. Once again, execution of sentence was suspended and defenda nt again was placed on three years formal probation. Defendant twice violated the term s of probation, and twice his probation was

revoked and reinstated. Defendant picked up another case, SA087288 (w hich is not at issue in this appeal). On July 30, 2014, th e trial court conducted a prelimin ary hearing in the new case, a probation violation hearing for the 2010 and 20 11 cases, and heard a nd denied defendant’s

Marsden 1 motion concerning his representation in the 2010 and 2011 cases. The trial court provisionally found defendant to be in viola tion of his probation, but put the matter over so

1 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 ( Marsden ).3 that more evidence could be pr esented. On August 13, 2014 , the trial court continued the probation violation hearing as to defendant’s 2010 and 2011 cases. Defendant addressed the court, and the trial court concluded that defe ndant violated his proba tion by being arrested on another drug possession charge. The tria l court imposed the previously suspended

sentences in the 2010 and 2011 cas es, ordered them to be served concurrently in the county jail (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)), and gave de fendant custody credit of 548 days for the 2010 case, and 655 days for the 2011 case. On December 5, 2014, defendant’s convictio ns were reduced to misdemeanors under the newly enacted Proposition 47, and defendant was resentenced to one year in county jail. Having served more than that amount of time, he was ordered released. (See Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a); People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108.) Defendant timely appealed post-plea matters not requiring a certificate of probable cause. We appointed appellate counsel to repres ent him. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) The brief

included a declaration that counsel reviewed the record and sent a letter to defendant explaining her evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared that she advised defendant of his right, under Wende , to submit a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief with this court. We have examined the entire record, co nsisting of three volumes of a clerk’s transcript, three volumes of a repor ter’s transcript, and the sealed Marsden transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with her resp onsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the judgment below.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

GRIMES, J. WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, Acting P. J. FLIER, J.