NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

Charles Darryl Warren appeals from a judgment entered following a finding that he was in violation of probation. We affirm.

Underlying Offense

On March 11, 2009, at about 7:45 p.m., Los Angeles Police Detective Michael Ling saw appellant sitting with two people on a doorstep in front of an apartment building in the City of Los Angeles.1 Detective Ling saw two people give appellant money. Appellant then walked down the street, met someone else, and returned to the first two people, carrying something that he started to give to them. Detective Ling walked up to appellant and saw that he was holding two off- white solids individually wrapped in plastic. After being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, appellant admitted that he was participating in narcotics sales.

In an amended information filed on May 21, 2009, appellant was charged with one count of sale/transportation/offer to sell cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and one count of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). ~(CT 33-34)~ It was further alleged that appellant had suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).

On June 15, 2009, appellant pled guilty to count one, sale/transportation/offer to sell cocaine base. Pursuant to the plea agreement, appellant was not required to admit the prior strike, and he was placed on formal felony probation for 36 months under the condition that he serve 168 days in county jail. He received credit for 112 days of actual custody and 56 conduct days, for a total of 168 days.

Probation Violation

On June 3, 2010, at about 6:00 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Randy Allen found a stolen car in a parking lot of a motel.2 Appellant was a suspect in the theft, so Officer Allen and his partner asked the front office of the motel whether appellant was staying there. After learning which room appellant was staying in, the officers waited in the parking lot, watching appellant's room.

Appellant and two other people came out of the room, got into the car, and drove away. Officer Allen and his partner stayed at the motel and notified other officers to stop the car.

Los Angeles Police Officer Matthew Courtney stopped the car, ordered everyone out, and handcuffed them. A gun was found on the front seat of the car. After appellant was taken into custody, Officer Allen searched appellant's motel room and found cocaine.

Appellant testified at the probation revocation hearing that his girlfriend bought the car for him. He was staying in the motel and realized that his car keys had been stolen from his room. When he went outside to look for his car, a man named Montgomery came up to him and said he knew where the car was and would get it back for him for $300. Appellant did not have $300, but Montgomery left and returned with the car and a woman unknown to appellant.

Montgomery asked for the $300, so appellant agreed to go to an ATM to get money. After the three of them drove away from the motel, they were followed by numerous police cars. Appellant asked the other two what they did with his car, and they began to get nervous. Appellant testified that he did not know anything about the gun found in the car or the narcotics found in his motel room.

On June 7, 2010, the court granted the People's ex parte motion to revoke probation and set a probation violation hearing.

On July 6, 2010, the court held a probation revocation hearing, found appellant in violation of probation, and sentenced him to the midterm of four years. The court imposed the requisite fines, fees, and conditions, and with the prior credits, gave appellant credit for 146 days of actual custody and 72 days of good time/work time credit for a total of 218 days. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On January 21, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

MANELLA, J.