P. v. Daniels

















Filed 1/4/13 P. v. Daniels
CA1/5













NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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



FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
FIVE






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEE JAMES DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant.

A135719 (>San Mateo> >County> Super. >Ct.> No. SC075210A)

Defendant Lee James Daniels pled no
contest to one count of possession of
cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and was
sentenced to two years in state prison.
Defendant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court
for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable
issues. (See Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

BACKGROUND

In February 2012, defendant was
charged by information with one count of felony possession of cocaine base
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The information also alleged he suffered six
previous felony convictions and served two prior prison terms. One of the priors, a 2004 conviction for href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">burglary, was alleged to be a strike
(Penal Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).

The trial court denied defendant’s href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">motion to suppress evidence and his
motion under People v. Marsden (1970)
2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). The transcript of the hearing on the motion
to suppress indicates the charge against defendant was based on the discovery
of a small amount of narcotics in defendant’s backpack pursuant to a search
following a traffic stop. Defendant was
stopped by the police because he was riding his bike on a street in the dark
without a light, a violation of Vehicle Code, section 21201, subdivision (d). Defendant consented to a search of his backpack;
subsequently, dispatch informed the officer who detained defendant that there
was a warrant for defendant’s arrest.

Defendant pled no contest and
admitted the prior strike allegation.
The trial court struck the strike pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and
imposed the middle term sentence of two years in state prison.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record
and have found no arguable appellate issues.
Defendant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the
proceedings. The trial court did not err
in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.
(See People v. Brown (1998) 62
Cal.App.4th 493, 499.) Neither did the
court err in denying defendant’s Marsden
motion.

Defendant completed a plea form that
described the constitutional rights
he was waiving by entering a no contest plea, the trial court went over those
rights with defendant, and the court found defendant freely, knowingly, and
intelligently waived those rights.
Defendant pled no contest to the count of felony possession of cocaine
base and admitted the prior strike.
Defense counsel stated there was a factual basis for the plea based on
the police reports and his own investigation.

The trial court’s sentence was
consistent with the plea agreement. The restitution fines imposed by the court
were proper.

Appellate counsel advised defendant
of his right to file a supplementary
brief to bring to the court’s attention any issue he believes deserves
review. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplementary
brief. There are no legal issues that
require further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.









SIMONS,
J.







We concur.









JONES, P.J.









BRUINIERS, J.