P. v. Banks
Filed 7/21/08 P. v. Banks CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL HENRY BANKS, Defendant and Appellant. | B202099 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA086262) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed.
Linn Davis, under appointment for the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Defendant Darrell Henry Banks was charged by information with possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) (count 1), possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11359) (count 2) and possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, 12280, subd. (b))[1](count 3). The information specially alleged as to count 1 that defendant was personally armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (c), and as to counts 1 and 2, that defendant was a principal armed with an automatic weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(2).
Defendant was tried by jury. The evidence established in May 2006, police officers executed a search warrant on a residence located at 115 E. 99th Street in Los Angeles and recovered quantities of marijuana and cocaine, over $2,000 in cash, two digital scales, plastic baggies, a loaded Norinco SKS assault weapon and boxes of ammunition inside a bedroom, which had been bolted shut. Officers also found photographs of defendant, a utility bill in his name, a set of keys for a Cadillac Escalade, and mens clothing inside the bedroom. No one was home at the time. Officers learned that a 2003 Cadillac sedan and a 2007 Cadillac SUV were registered in defendants name.
In July 2007, police were investigating a neighborhood dispute and contacted defendant. He gave his residence address as 115 E. 99th Street in Los Angeles and was arrested on an outstanding warrant.
Jeffrey Collier (Collier), defendants brother, testified in defendants defense that defendant moved out of the 115 E. 99th Street residence in 2001 or 2002 but remained responsible for paying the bills. In 2005, Collier rented the bedroom in which the illicit drugs were found to Aaron King (King) and his friend Robert, without defendants knowledge. Following the 2006 police search of the residence, King and Robert disappeared.
Defendant testified in his defense and denied the drugs, cash, weapon and ammunition were his. He also claimed to have been unaware of the police search of the residence. He left the residence in 2004 or 2005. Defendant was unaware King and Robert were living at the residence.
The jury convicted defendant as charged and found true the arming enhancement allegations.
Based on the stipulation of counsel and the factors it found in mitigation, the trial court imposed a five-year state prison sentence: the lower term of two years on count 1, plus three years for the section 12022, subdivision (c), arming enhancement; concurrent terms of 16 months on count 2 and three years for the section 12022, subdivision (c), arming enhancement; and a concurrent term of 16 months on count 3. The court stayed sentencing on the section 12022, subdivision (a), arming enhancement for count 1. Defendant received presentence custody credit of 43 days (29 actual days and 14 days of conduct credit). The court ordered defendant to pay a $50 lab fee and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On January 15, 2008, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to submit personally any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendants attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
JACKSON, J.
We concur:
WOODS, Acting P. J.
ZELON, J
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
