1 Filed 10/23/14 P. v. Arellano CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ADRIAN ARELLANO, Defendant and Appellant. E061096 (Super.Ct.No. FVA1400248) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino Count y. Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. Affirmed. David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Adrian Arella no pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance (count 1; Health & Sa f. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor petty theft (count 2; Pen. C ode, § 484, subd. (a)). The cour t sentenced defendant to the agreed upon split sentence of the midterm of two years im prisonment on count 1, the2 second year of which would be suspended while defend ant would be placed on mandatory supervision, and a concurre nt term of 180 days on count 2. After counsel filed the notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of the facts, and identifying three potentially argua ble issues: 1) whether de fendant was advised of his trial rights and the consequences of his plea prior to entering into the plea bargain; 2) whether there is a factual basis for the plea; and 3) whether appellant received the agreed upon sentence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 A police officer was dispatched to a Wa lmart store in Fontana on February 10, 2014, at 9:35 p.m. regarding a report that a su spect had shoplifted. The officer conducted a patdown search of defendant which reveal ed a fixed blade paring knife, a number of neckties, a black T-shirt, a package of lighters, and a kitchen knife s till in its packaging. The loss prevention officer reported the object s belonged to the store and had a retail value of $150.42. Defendant had no wallet or credit cards on his person. Defendant had a total of $4.43 on him. The officer additionally found a small cloth bag with a piece of clear, torn plastic tied at one end containing a sm all amount of a white crystallin e substance consistent with

1 The parties stipulated the police report would provide the factual basis for the plea. Our factual history is de rived from the police report.3 the appearance of methamphetamine. The su bstance tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine. The People charged defendant with possessi on of a controlled substance (count 1; Health & Saf., § 11377, subd (a)) and petty thef t (count 2; Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)). The People additionally allege d defendant had suffe red two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant initialed portions of a plea agreement indicating he understood his rights and the consequences of the plea. De fendant initialed a box adjacent to a term indicating he had had sufficient time to cons ult with his attorney who had explained the consequences of the plea to hi m. Defendant signed the plea agreement. Defense counsel signed the plea agreement indica ting he had personall y explained the contents of the plea agreement to defendant. Before entering the plea, the court asked de fendant if he went over the entire plea with defense counsel before signing it. De fendant said he had. The court asked defendant if he understood each of his c onstitutional rights and all possible penalties upon entering the plea. Defendant responded, “I believe I do, your Honor.” The court indicated defendant would be pleading guilty with respect to both counts in return for imposition of a split sentence of the midt erm on count 1, two years, wh ich would comprise one year in jail and another unde r mandatory supervisi on. The court would dismiss the prior prison term allegations. De fendant indicated that was his understanding of the plea.4 The court asked defendant if anyone had ma de any other promises to defendant. Defendant responded that no on e had. The court asked defe ndant if he had had enough time to discuss the case with hi s attorney. Defendant indicated he had. The court asked if defendant understood everything in the pl ea agreement. Defendant said he did. The court asked if defense counsel went over th e entire plea form with defendant. Defense counsel responded that he had. The court found “defendant has read a nd understood the decl aration and plea form. He understands the nature of the char ges he’s pleading to, all the consequences and punishments for the offenses he’s pleading to, and each of his constitutional rights. I’ll find he freely, voluntarily, knowingly, a nd intelligently waives each of those rights.” Defendant entered the plea. The court sent enced defendant to the agreed upon term.
DISCUSSION We offered defendant an op portunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have independently reviewed th e record for potential error and find no arguable issues.5 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

McKINSTER J.