Filed 7/15/24 P. v. Childress CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082753 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. BLF2100188) JAMES EDWARD CHILDRESS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Charles Jacob Koosed, Russell L. Moore, Judges. Affirmed.

Robert L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2023, a jury convicted James Edward Childress of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380) (count 1); maintaining a place to sell, give and use a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366) (count 3); possession of a dangerous weapon (Pen. Code § 22210) (count 4); possession of a controlled substance (Health& Saf. Code, § 11350) (count 5); possession of a drug paraphernalia (Health& Saf. Code, § 11364) (count 6); and possession of brass knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810) (count 7). He was sentenced to 3 years eight months, with credit for time served of 992 days.

Childress filed a timely notice of appeal.

Childress’s appellate counsel filed a declaration stating that he attempted to contact Childress using his last known address, his father’s address, and his last known e-mail address, but Childress did not respond.

No mail was returned.

Appellate counsel subsequently filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asked the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Upon order of this court, appellate counsel filed a further declaration stating that he had mailed a copy of the Wende brief to Childress at his last known address, and had advised him of the Wende brief procedure, including Childress’s right to file his own supplemental brief. This court had ordered that such a brief be filed within thirty days of an order dated June 10, 2024.

No supplemental brief has been received.

To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Was there sufficient evidence that appellant furnished a controlled substance to a minor?

DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Childress on this appeal. We therefore affirm.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.