P. v. Buchmiller
Filed 1/3/14 P. v. Buchmiller CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
COPY
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
BRUCE
DOYLE BUCHMILLER,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C073473
(Super. Ct. No.
CRF13772)
This
appeal comes to us pursuant to
436 (Wende).
A
complaint was filed alleging that defendant Bruce Doyle Buchmiller possessed
methamphetamine for sale (count 1;
possessed methamphetamine (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd.
(a)), and possessed controlled substance paraphernalia (count 3; Health &
Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). It
was also alleged that defendant had served three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b);
undesignated section references are to the Penal
Code.)
Defendant
subsequently entered a plea of no contest to count 1 in return for the
dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a stipulated three-year
term to be served in county jail. (§ 1170,
subd. (h).) According to the parties’
statements at the sentencing hearing on February 25, 2013, in West
Sacramento, defendant was found in possession of 1.7 grams of methamphetamine,
a digital scale, a pay-owe sheet, and packaging materials.
The
trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to the stipulated three-year county
jail term (the upper term on count 1).
The court awarded defendant 45 days of presentence custody credit (23
days of actual credit and 22 days of conduct credit). The court imposed a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4,
subd. (b)), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal
conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court also imposed a $280 suspended
parole revocation restitution fine (§1202.45), but later struck it after
appellate counsel pointed out that this fine is unauthorized where a sentence
is to be served in county jail (§ 1170, subd. (h)).
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
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (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
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.
HULL , J.
We concur:
RAYE , P. J.
BLEASE , J.
