Filed 8/7/13 P. v. Como CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JEFFREY COMO, Defendant and Appellant. D062702

(Super. Ct. Nos. SCD183138, SCD198455)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of San Dieg o County, David M. Szumowski and Michael T. Smyth, Judges. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Jeffrey J. Como appeals a judgment fo llowing his convictions of selling or furnishing a controlled substance, namely co caine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), 1 and carrying a concealed weapon (form er Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND In 2004, Como was convicted of one count of carrying a concealed weapon (former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)) in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD183138 (Case B). The trial cour t granted him probation for three years. In 2006, Como handed cocaine base to codefendant Ji mmy who, in turn, sold it to an undercover police officer. In San Diego County Superi or Court Case No. SCD198455 (Case A), a complaint charged Como with selling or furnishing a controlled substance, namely cocaine base (§ 11352, subd. (a)), an d also alleged he: (1) sold it within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.073, su bdivision (b)(7); (2) had various Health and Safety Code convictions within the meanings of sections 1 1370.2, subdivision (a), 11370, subdivision (a), and Penal Code section 12 03.07, subdivision (a)(11); and (3) had two prior prison terms within the meaning of Pe nal Code section 667. 5, subdivision (b). Como's probation in Case B was revoked. Following trial in Case A, the jury fo und Como guilty of th e charged offense and found true the allegation he sold cocaine base within the meaning of Penal Code section

1 All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.3 1203.073, subdivision (b)(7). Como admitted the truth of the other allegations in the complaint. At his December 19, 2006, sentencing, the trial court sentenced Como to the lower term of three years for his Case A convic tion and imposed a consecutive three-year enhancement for one of the se ction 11370.2, subdiv ision (a), allegations, for a total term of six years in prison. The court sentenced Como to a concurrent two-year term for his Case B conviction. The court then suspende d proceedings under We lfare and Institutions Code section 3151 a nd referred Como for treatment at the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). On April 30, 2012, the tr ial court vacated Como's CRC commitment. On August 13, the court reinstated criminal proceedings in Cases A and B. On August 20, the court sentenced Como in Cases A and B to the same terms it imposed in 2006. In Case A, it awarded him 1,619 days of act ual custody credits and 272 da ys of conduct credits, for a total of 1,891 custody credits. In Case B, it awarded him 1,712 days of actual custody credits and 265 days of conduct credits, for a total of 1,977 custody credits. Como timely filed a notice of appeal challenging th e judgments in Case A and Case B.
DISCUSSION Como's appointed counsel has filed a br ief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for revers al of the judgment, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has not identified any possible issues for our review.4 We granted Como permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California , supra , 386 U.S. 738 has di sclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Como has been competently represente d by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J. WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.

McINTYRE, J.