P. v. Dawson
Filed 10/17/06 P. v. Dawson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN CARLTON DAWSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
C052402
(Super. Ct. No. CM023472)
|
Defendant John Carlton Dawson pled no contest to two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) He admitted an on-bail allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022.1)[1] and a strike allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, five related counts were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for nine years four months, awarded 222 days of custody credit and 110 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $3,600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $3,600 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $350 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) including penalty assessments, a $1,050 drug program fee including penalty assessments (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), and a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8). Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending (1) his retained counsel rendered ineffective assistance, (2) no fingerprints were found on relevant evidence, and (3) evidence of a third party’s culpability was erroneously excluded. These contentions, if successful, would require withdrawal of defendant’s plea and cannot be raised without a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098-1099; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-75.)
Defendant claims the trial court erred at sentencing by overlooking several mitigating factors: there were no usable fingerprints, there was evidence of third party culpability, he had no prior drug convictions, and the motel room where he was arrested was not registered in his name. Any conceivable error in connection with these factors is patently harmless.
The trial court found six factors in aggravation and none in mitigation: defendant was being sentenced on three separate offenses consolidated into a single proceeding; there was a considerable amount of contraband; defendant had numerous prior convictions of increasing seriousness; he had served a prior prison term; he was on probation or parole at the time of the offenses; and he had six prior parole violations. Even if the court had considered the allegedly mitigating factors, it is not reasonably probable that it would have chosen a midterm or low term sentence. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P.J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
