P. v. Denwitty
Filed 1/23/09 P. v. Denwitty CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DUPREE DENWITTY, Defendant and Appellant. | F055091 (Super. Ct. No. BF120727A) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jerold L. Turner, Judge.
Julia L. Bancroft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On September 22, 2007, officers served a search warrant at appellant, Dupree Denwittys residence in Bakersfield. A search of the residence uncovered three pieces of cocaine base with a combined weight of 41.3 grams, packaging material, a digital scale, and $2,000 in cash. A search of Denwittys person uncovered a baggie containing six grams of cocaine base.
On October 11, 2007, the district attorney filed an information charging Denwitty with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, 667.5 subd. (b)). It also alleged that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12).
On November 30, 2007, the court heard and denied Denwittys suppression motion.
On December 4, 2007, the court heard and denied Denwittys Marsden[1]motion.
On February 19, 2008, Denwitty pled no contest to possession of cocaine base and admitted the three strikes law allegations in exchange for a lid of six years.
On March 26, 2008, the court denied Denwittys Romero motion[2]and sentenced him to a six-year term, the mitigated term of three years, doubled to six years because of Denwittys prior strike conviction.
Denwittys appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Denwitty had not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.
[1]People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118,
[2]People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
