P. v. Cardenas
Filed 10/16/08 P. v. Cardenas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO PACO CARDENAS, Defendant and Appellant. | E045183 (Super.Ct.No. FWV024795) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael R. Libutti, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On March 5, 2002, pursuant to a search warrant, narcotics officers searched two residences in the City of Fontana.[1] The officers found a total of 102.58 pounds of marijuana, 14.4 pounds of methamphetamine, a white crystal-like substance weighing 2.4 pounds, numerous other items related to drug sales, and bills in the names of defendant and codefendants.[2]
Defendant fled the scene upon arrival of the officers but was apprehended. He asserted that he was at the residence only to collect a debt and had no knowledge of the drugs.
On March 7, 2002, a complaint was filed charging defendant and codefendants with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) (count 1) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359) (count 2).
On September 10, 2002, defendant pled no contest to count 1; in return the remaining charge was to be dismissed. On November 19, 2002, the remaining count was dismissed, and defendant was placed on probation on various terms and conditions, including serving time on weekends in county jail.
Defendant successfully completed probation with no further negative contact with law enforcement. On November 27, 2007, defendant filed a motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code sections 17 and 18 and to dismiss the charge pursuant to Penal Code sections 1203.3 and 1203.4. Defendant sought to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor and to dismiss it to remain in the United States and be eligible for benefits under the Family Unity Program. In support, defendant filed various documents to show his and his childrens good characters. Information was presented to the court that defendant was a hard worker, owned his own business, and provided for his family. He had three children, all born in the United States, who were good citizens.
On December 14, 2007, following a hearing at which defendant was represented by counsel, the trial court set the felony conviction aside and dismissed the charge pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4. However, the court denied the request to reduce the change to a misdemeanor, as the crime of which defendant was convicted, possession of methamphetamine for sales (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) was not eligible for reduction under Penal Code sections 17 and 18.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
MILLER
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
[1] The factual background is taken from the probation report.
