STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 8, 2015, Yates was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance in prison (marijuana) (§ 4573.6; count 1). It was also alleged as to count 1 that Yates had a prior “strike” conviction for a violation of section 192, subdivision (a), within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (c) through (j) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e). On March 18, 2016, Yates was convicted by jury of count one, and the trial court found true the special allegation that Yates had a prior strike conviction. On April 18, 2016, Yates was sentenced to the lower term of two years, doubled for the prior strike, on count 1. Yates’s 2009 conviction for a violation of section 4502, subdivision (a) in Lassen County was designated as the subordinate case, and a consecutive term of one year, one-third of the middle term, was imposed to run consecutively in that case. The total state prison term imposed was five years. On February 15, 2023, Yates filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11361.8, and on March 9, 2023, the petition was denied. On March 24, 2023, Yates filed a timely notice of appeal from that denial.

STATEMENT OF FACTS2

On June 2, 2013, at approximately 2:30 p.m., officers at the Kern Valley State Prison conducted an unclothed body search of inmate Yates. During the search, officers discovered a bag of suspected marijuana which Yates had secreted in his anus. Yates

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

2 Facts are taken from the April 18, 2016, probation officer’s report.

2. voluntarily submitted the contraband to the officers, and the matter was later referred to the Kern County District Attorney’s Office for further investigation.

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Yates’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Yates was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 11, 2023, we invited Yates to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. 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 Yates.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

3.