What is the test for overturning a judgment that found an appellant guilty of a charge of possession of drugs with intent to pervert the course of justice?

Lastly, appellant claims the judgment must be reversed because of the cumulative prejudicial effect of all of the errors. We disagree. Since, with the exception of the erroneous imposition of two fines and the trial court's failure to suspend the prison term for count two, we find none of appellant's other claims of error meritorious and/or prejudicial, a cumulative error argument cannot be sustained. Appellant was entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one. (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057.) This time, that is what appellant got.