P. v. Mejorado

P. v. Mejorado

Filed 8/18/08 P. v. Mejorado CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE MEJORADO, Defendant and Appellant.

B204495 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA101383)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip H. Hickok, Judge. Affirmed.

Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_

After denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant and appellant Jose Mejorado was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of sale and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11351 and 11378. Defendants motion to dismiss a prior conviction under the three strikes law was granted pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison on the cocaine charge and a concurrent two-year term on the methamphetamine offense.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On June 13, 2008, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues, but requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record for error. Defendant was notified by this court that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days.

Defendant did not file a supplemental brief, but instead filed a letter requesting the appointment of new counsel. The request for appointment of new counsel was denied.

We have reviewed the entire record in this case, including the transcripts of the motion to suppress, all matters occurring at trial, the jury instructions given by the trial court, and the sentence imposed. Our review reveals no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is therefore affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283-284.)

KRIEGLER, J.

We concur:

ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J. MOSK, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com