Filed 4/3/18 P. v. Cruz CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL CRUZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F075652

(Super. Ct. No. F16907124)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge.
Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-



Appointed counsel for defendant Daniel Cruz asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Police officers responded to a disturbance call. They contacted defendant, who admitted he had a loaded gun in his pocket. The officers handcuffed defendant and recovered the loaded gun. A post-arrest search of defendant produced a baggie of methamphetamine, a miniature scale, and $425. Defendant admitted he was “getting ready to figure out where to sell” the methamphetamine.
On December 7, 2016, defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded and operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 4). He also admitted having suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
On April 17, 2017, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero motion and sentenced defendant to five years four months in prison, as follows: two years on count 4, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, and one year four months on count 1. The court imposed various fines and fees.
On May 16, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.