Filed 4/14/17 P. v. Roman CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIC ROMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082661

(Super. Ct. No. CR161663)





Appointed counsel for defendant Eric Roman asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2016, at about 3:15 p.m. a man told an undercover officer he could make a $20 purchase of methamphetamine for him from a nearby friend. The man ran from the officer’s vehicle to the southeast corner of an apartment complex, where he contacted defendant. The man returned to the officer and said he could make a $20 purchase happen. The officer asked if he could buy more; the man ran to defendant, had a discussion with him, and then returned, telling the officer he could make an eightball (one-eighth of an ounce) purchase happen for $70. The man took the money from the officer, went to defendant, and returned with 1.8 grams of methamphetamine.
On March 22, 2016, at around 2:00 p.m., defendant was seen selling drugs from a bicycle in a Kentucky Fried Chicken parking lot in West Sacramento. He had active arrest warrants. When an officer approached him, he rode off on his bicycle. Officers pursued, and defendant was caught and detained while in possession of a plastic bag containing four smaller plastic bags holding a total of 5.8 grams of methamphetamine.
Defendant pleaded no contest to selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379) and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale (§ 11378) and admitted a strike (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) and a prior conviction related to controlled substances (§ 11370.2). The trial court imposed a stipulated term of 11 years in state prison, consisting of an upper term of four years for the sale of methamphetamine conviction, doubled to eight years for the strike, a concurrent three-year term for possession for sale, and a consecutive three years for the section 11370.2 enhancement.
After determining the initial sentence violated the three strikes law prohibition against concurrent sentences for crimes not committed on the same occasion or arising from the same operative facts, the trial court recalled the sentence and, without objection, imposed an 10-year four-month term, consisting of a three-year term for the sales count doubled to six years, a consecutive eight months doubled to 16 months for the possession for sales count, and a consecutive three years for the section 11370.2 enhancement. The court also imposed various fines and fees and awarded 244 days of presentence credit (122 actual and 122 conduct).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


/s/
Duarte, J.


We concur:


/s/
Nicholson, Acting P. J.



/s/
Robie, J.