Filed 5/26/17 P. v. Hawley CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JESSIE RANDALL HAWLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
A150115

(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-2016-87833)


During a search of defendant’s vehicle on October 16, 2016, over five pounds of marijuana, individually packaged, and multiple canisters of concentrated cannabis were found inside. Additionally, multiple bottles of butane, some empty and some partially full, were discovered. Defendant admitted he was present when the concentrated cannabis located in his car was made.
Defendant was charged in a complaint with one count of manufacturing a controlled substance, concentrated cannabis, (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)) and one count of possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The complaint further alleged defendant suffered two prior strike convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667.) A petition to revoke defendant’s parole was also before the court.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to manufacturing a controlled substance and stipulated to the aggravated term of seven years. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the possession for sale of marijuana charge as well as both strike priors.
The trial court later sentenced defendant to the agreed upon aggravated term of seven years in state prison with credit for time served of 65 days. The court also revoked and reinstated defendant’s parole and sentenced him to a 90-day concurrent prison term.
Defendant filed a timely appeal challenging “the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant, and has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case, but advising the court under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was notified by counsel he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received.
Following the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have examined the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present. Because defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime by entering a plea of no contest, he is not entitled to review of any issue regarding his guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.)
We also find no meritorious sentencing issues requiring reversal of the judgment. Defendant was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We therefore agree with defendant’s counsel that no issues are present undermining defendant’s no contest plea.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.







_________________________
Margulies, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P.J.


_________________________
Dondero, J.