Filed 10/19/22 P. v. Smalley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 , F084478 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF016797A) v. DARIENGA SMALLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge.

Allen E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Darienga Smalley 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.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond.

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND From November 26, 2021, through February 28, 2022, defendant was involved in procuring and delivering drugs and cell phones by drone into prison yards.1 On May 5, 2022, defendant pled no contest to conspiring to possess a cell phone with the intent to deliver it to an inmate (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4576; count 5) and admitted a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). Five other charges were dismissed.

On June 3, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison: the midterm of two years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The court awarded custody credits and imposed various fines and fees.

On June 14, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION 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.

1 These facts come from the declaration of a correctional officer.

2.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

3.