NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FYBEL, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Juvenal Christobal Marquez was convicted of multiple drug-related crimes, vehicle code violations, and destruction of evidence, and sentenced to a total of two years in prison.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel suggested we consider three possible issues: whether the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence, whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession for sale, and whether the court erred in granting the People's motion to exclude reference to a codefendant's guilty plea.

On January 5, 2011, this court provided defendant with 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period of time has passed, and we have received no communication from him.

We have examined the entire record and counsel's Wende brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

Santa Ana police officers conducted surveillance of a house on St. Andrew's Street in Santa Ana on December 22, 2009. Shortly before noon, codefendant Hugo Nunez Magana was observed exiting the garage of the house and entering a white van. At the same time, defendant appeared from the front area of the house and entered the driver's side of the van.

A marked patrol car began following the white van that defendant was driving. The van exceeded the posted speed limits, and failed to stop at a stop sign. A police officer in the patrol car observed plastic baggies being thrown out of the front passenger window of the van. Some of those baggies were later recovered, and contained methamphetamine.

After defendant finally stopped the van, he was searched, and a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine, $888 in cash (mostly in $20's), and a cell phone were found on him. Defendant did not appear to be under the influence of methamphetamine.

Sometime after defendant and Magana left the house, Cali Chang was observed leaving the house. Chang was stopped and searched by the police. About $380 in cash and a pay/owe sheet bearing the name Juvenal were found on Chang; an officer testified those sheets are typically used to list the purchasers of narcotics and the amounts they have paid or they owe for their purchases.

During a search of the house, the police found a loaded handgun, a loaded rifle, ammunition, a scale, plastic baggies, and a tin containing approximately 20.7 grams of methamphetamine.

Defendant was charged with driving recklessly while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2); possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); sale or transportation of a controlled substance (id., § 11379, subd. (a)); possession of drug paraphernalia (id., § 11364); driving a motor vehicle without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)); and destroying or concealing evidence (Pen. Code, § 135). At the beginning of trial, codefendant Magana pled guilty. A jury found defendant guilty of all counts.

Defendant was sentenced to a total of two years in prison: the low term of two years for violating Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a), and terms of either two years or six months on all remaining counts, all of which were to run concurrently.

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ISSUES

Appointed counsel suggested we consider three potential issues. First, did the trial court err in admitting the pay/owe sheet as evidence? Second, is there sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale? And third, did the trial court err in granting the People's motion to exclude reference to the guilty plea of codefendant Magana?

The pay/owe sheet bearing defendant's first name was found on a person leaving the same house defendant had left earlier—a house where controlled substances were obviously being sold. Pay/owe sheets are admissible as nonhearsay evidence, and do not violate the confrontation clause when offered as circumstantial evidence of the sale of controlled substances. (People v. Harvey (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1222-1223, 1226.) The trial court instructed the jury that the pay/owe sheet could be considered as "evidence of guilt only for the limited purpose of whether the narcotics that have been mentioned in this case w[ere] possessed for purposes of sale." It was not error to admit the pay/owe sheet.

There was sufficient evidence that defendant possessed methamphetamine for purposes of sale. One of the officers who arrested defendant testified that, in his opinion, based on the totality of the circumstances, the methamphetamine recovered in the plastic baggies had been possessed for sale. His opinion relied on the following: the same amount of methamphetamine was found in two small plastic baggies, and a larger amount was found in the third baggie; defendant was in possession of a large amount of cash in denominations consistent with the size of transactions for controlled substances; and defendant was observed leaving a house where narcotics, guns, and items used to package and sell drugs were found. This evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession for sale.

The trial court did not err in granting the People's motion to exclude reference to Magana's guilty plea. The court's order was limited to precluding mention of the guilty plea during defendant's opening statement. The court determined that the People would be prejudiced if Magana's guilty plea was mentioned during opening statement, but Magana did not testify (particularly after the jury had seen Magana present during voir dire). The court specifically noted that if defendant called Magana as a witness, the issue of the use of his guilty plea would be revisited; defendant, however, rested without calling any witnesses.

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appointed counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented defendant in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'LEARY, ACTING P. J. and IKOLA, J., concurs.