P. v. Dutra
Filed 1/26/09 P. v. Dutra CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHARON IRENE DUTRA, Defendant and Appellant. | B206197 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA101407) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvonne T. Sanchez, Judge. Affirmed.
Anthony D. Zinnanti, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sharon Irene Dutra appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and a court trial in which she was found to have suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Her motion to strike her prior conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 was denied and she was sentenced to prison for a total of four years, consisting of the middle term of two years, doubled by reason of her prior strike conviction. The sentence for the prior prison term was stayed.
The evidence at trial established that on June 21, 2007, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff William Campbell and his partners served a search warrant at a location on Fairford Avenue in Norwalk. The officers knocked on the front door of the main residence. Hearing movement in the house but receiving no response to their knocking, the officers forced entry. They detained five individuals, three adults and two children, while other officers searched the remainder of the house. While officers were clearing the front house, Gary Wilkerson ran down the driveway, and was detained. No narcotics were found in the main house.
After the main house was secure, the officers went into the backyard and garage area. They knocked on the door to a shed, announced their presence, and appellant opened the door. Deputy Campbell immediately saw 12 baggies containing methamphetamine lined up on a shelf west of the front door. Inside the shed, Deputy Campbell found 12 bags of marijuana in a black pouch, two digital scales with white powder residue, and .22 caliber ammunition. Two police scanners and numerous unused baggies, the same size as the 12 found near the door, were also recovered from the shed. Under the cushions of a couch just outside the shed area, Deputy Campbell found a .22 caliber rifle loaded with one live round. Surveillance cameras were also located on the property.
Following waiver of her Miranda[1]rights, appellant stated she lived in the shed and that half of the methamphetamine and marijuana recovered from the shed belonged to her. Appellant said she could not say whether the weapon found was hers.
It was stipulated that the residue from the scales was .12 grams of powder containing methamphetamine, that the 12 baggies found enclosed an estimated total net weight of approximately 4.80 grams of powder, and that two of the containers were tested and enclosed approximately .80 grams of powder containing methamphetamine. The amounts that were tested were of a usable quantity.
Gary Wilkerson testified for the defense that appellant never possessed the bags of methamphetamine or scales and that Wilkerson told the officers that the narcotics were his.
Appellant waived her right to a jury trial on her prior convictions, and the court found appellant had been convicted of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 on July 10, 2001, in case number VA065618. Additionally, the court found appellant was convicted in case number KA052389 of forgery in violation of Penal Code section 472 and served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On September 24, 2008, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against her in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
MANELLA, J.
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
