P. v. Chaffer
Filed 5/6/13 P.
v. Chaffer CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SYDNEY
JOAN CHAFFER,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C069673
(Super. Ct. No.
CRF112413)
This
case comes to us pursuant to
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by
We
provide the following brief description of the procedural history and facts of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
A
jury convicted defendant Sydney Joan Chaffer of transportation of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and
possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377,
subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence
was suspended and defendant was placed on Proposition 36 probation for
three years.
On
an afternoon in April 2011,
Sheriff’s Deputies Dana Tello and Derrick Alatorre observed two cars stopped at
the side of a state highway in the vicinity of a dangerous sharp turn. The deputies stopped to perform a welfare
check on a man and woman standing between the cars. The woman, identified as defendant, indicated
that she did not need assistance and that she was speaking to her daughter on a
cellular telephone.
Defendant
told Deputy Tello that she was returning home from a casino where she had been
all night long. She told Tello she had
not possessed or used any illegal substances and stated she was a recovering
cocaine addict.
Defendant
granted Deputy Alatorre’s request to search her car. Alatorre found a purse that defendant
identified as hers. She gave Alatorre
permission to search the purse. The
search yielded two small clear plastic baggies containing a white substance
that tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine. Deputy Tello opined that the methamphetamine
was a usable amount.
Following
advisement of her constitutional rights,
defendant admitted that the methamphetamine was hers. She claimed she had purchased it a while ago
and had forgotten it was in her purse.
Following this conversation, Deputy Tello placed defendant in the back
of her patrol car, which was equipped with a recording device. While seated in the patrol car, defendant
told the man she had been with that she wanted him to bail her out. He responded that she should not have
consented to the search. He stated he
would claim she had refused to consent to the search.
Deputy
Tello was recalled for the defense.
Tello confirmed defendant’s statement that she had bought the
methamphetamine a long time ago.
Defendant did not indicate where she had gotten it.
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an
opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was
advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we
have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The
judgment is affirmed.
MURRAY , J.
We
concur:
BUTZ ,
Acting P. J.
DUARTE , J.
