Filed
11/7/13 P. v. Hill CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SCOTT ANTHONY HILL,
Defendant and Appellant.
F066688
(Super. Ct. No. CRF38799)
THE COURT
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Deborah
Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office
of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Scott Anthony Hill, pled
no contest to possession of a controlled
substance in a jail facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6)
conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds.
(b)-(i)). Following independent review
of the record pursuant to
436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
On April 28, 2012, Officer Weiland
was conducting a security check of dorm 62 at the Sierra Conservation Center when
he saw Hill, an inmate at the center, throw a small object into his
locker. After Hill complied with Weiland’s
command to step away, Weiland searched the locker and found a small bindle
containing .08 grams of marijuana.
On September 5, 2012, the Tuolumne County
District Attorney filed a complaint charging Hill with possession of an illegal
substance in a jail facility and having a prior conviction within the meaning
of the three strikes law. Following a
preliminary hearing on the same date, the court deemed the complaint to be an information.
On December 5, 2012, pursuant to a
negotiated plea, Hill pled guilty to the possession charge and admitted the
three strikes allegation in exchange for a stipulated four-year prison term,
the mitigated term of two years, doubled because of Hill’s prior strike
conviction.
On January 7, 2013, pursuant to his
to the stipulated term of four years.
Hill’s
appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations
to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Hill has not responded to this
court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of
the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
J., and Peña, J.
further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
