Filed 11/13/23 P. v. Davis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098660 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE011039) v. ROBERT L. DAVIS III, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert L. Davis III asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In December 2021, while he was incarcerated, defendant possessed 23 grams of unauthorized drugs (methamphetamine).

In March 2023, defendant pleaded no contest to violating Penal Code, section 4573.8 (statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code) and admitted having a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Per the parties’ agreement, defendant was sentenced to state prison for 32 months consecutive to his current sentence

(the low term of 16 months doubled due to the strike). The trial court found defendant was indigent and did not impose any fines or fees.

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause on appeal.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked 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 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.

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

RENNER, J.

KEITHLEY, J.

 Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution