P. v. Curry
Filed 6/29/12 P. v. Curry CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
IKE CURRY,
Defendant and Appellant.
B236763
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA375101)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed.
John
Alan Cohan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* *
* * * *
On November 17, 2008, a confidential
informant equipped with a hidden video camera bought $50 worth of rock cocaine
from appellant Ike Curry as part of a joint FBI-LAPD drug sting operation. In order to avoid compromising the
investigation, Curry’s arrest was delayed until November 2010, after bigger
fish involved in the drug operation were also arrested.
Curry
was charged with one count of selling
cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), along with
two Three Strikes allegations. Despite
the trial court’s admonishments concerning the risks of self-representation,
Curry waived his right to counsel and chose to act as his own lawyer, claiming
that he “beat 18 felonies here in the criminal courts building.†However, standby counsel was appointed and
attended the trial.
The
evidence at trial included the testimony of the informant, who said she had
been searched by the police to be sure she had no drugs in her possession, and
was then wired with audio and video recording equipment and given $50 to buy
rock cocaine at a designated location.
Using street vernacular, the informant told Curry she wanted to buy $50
worth of rock cocaine. Curry pulled a
substance from his mouth and handed it to the informant, who then gave Curry
$50. The informant returned to the
police officers and handed them the substance, which later testing showed was
0.32 grams of rock cocaine. Two police
officers and an FBI agent who directed the sting testified to these
events. The video and audio recordings
of the transaction were played for the jury, and still photos captured from the
video were also shown to the jury.
Curry
did not testify. His court-appointed
investigator did, but offered little help except to note that the still photos
– which Curry claimed had been altered – were darker and less distinct than the
video images from which they had been taken.
The investigator also testified that the videotape was clear and
precise. When asked to compare some of
the photographs with their video image counterparts, he admitted that the
photos appeared to be images from the video recording. He also acknowledged that some of the
terminology used in the video sounded like a drug transaction was taking place.
The
jury convicted Curry of the drug sales charge.
The prosecution had earlier dismissed one of the two Three Strikes
allegations. Curry waived his right to a
jury trial on the truth of the remaining Three Strikes allegation – a 1979
conviction for assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220) and oral
copulation on someone under age 14 (§ 288a, subd. (c)). The trial court found the allegation was true
and imposed a four-year midterm sentence, which was doubled to eight years
under Three Strikes.
Curry
filed a notice of appeal. On February 6,
2012, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which
no issues were raised. The brief
included a declaration from counsel that he had reviewed the record and had
sent Curry a letter advising him that such a brief would be filed and that he
could file a supplemental brief if he chose to.
That same day, this court sent Curry a letter advising him that a
had 30 days to submit a brief raising any issues he wanted us to consider. Curry asked for and was given three
extensions of time to file a supplemental brief, but no such brief was ever
filed.
We
have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Curry’s attorney has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN,
Acting P. J.
We concur:
FLIER,
J. SORTINO,
J.
Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
