Filed 6/11/25 P. v. Daniels CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101434 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE017539) v. TAMEKA DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Tameka Daniels filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of this case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. As detailed below, the trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.

BACKGROUND On or about October 5, 2023, an undercover law enforcement officer approached defendant. Defendant asked the officer, “Do you want to hit some pipe?” Defendant then gave the officer 0.62 grams of methamphetamine in exchange for $20.

The People charged defendant with transporting a controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The People alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction.

Defendant pled no contest to transporting a controlled substance. The trial court imposed the upper term of four years imprisonment but stayed execution of the sentence and placed defendant on probation.

In March 2024, the Probation Department filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation. Defendant admitted to the alleged probation violations. The trial court lifted the stay on the previously imposed four-year sentence.

The abstract of judgment indicates defendant was sentenced pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), or 1170.12 (the Three Strikes law).

Defendant timely appealed. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks 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 her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, there is an error in the abstract of judgment that warrants correction. The abstract incorrectly indicates defendant was sentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes law. This indication should be removed.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare a corrected abstract of judgment that does not indicate defendant was sentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes law and then forward the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

\s\ , Krause, J.

We concur:

\s\ , Earl, P. J.

\s\ , Mesiwala, J.