DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Salas on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On October 16, 2013 we advised Salas he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On October 28, 2013 we received a handwritten supplemental brief in which Salas challenged both his conviction, on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, and his sentence, asserting it violated section 654 and was improperly based on the use of his juvenile adjudication as a prior strike and otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion under Romero. Salas’s claims are without merit. The record fails to demonstrate defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].) As for Salas’s claims of sentencing error, he waived his right to challenge his sentence on appeal. In any event, the record fails to support Salas’s contention he was sentenced in violation of section 654 (see People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208) or the trial court abused its discretion under Romero (see

3

People v. Meloney (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1145, 1155). Finally, contrary to Salas’s assertion, the court dismissed his juvenile adjudication for robbery as a prior strike and did not consider it in imposing sentence. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Salas’s counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

ZELON, J.

*

SEGAL, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

4