P. v. Griffin
Filed 11/8/10 P. v. Griffin CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID SAMUEL GRIFFIN, Defendant and Appellant. | C064847 (Super. Ct. No. 10F00653) |
Appointed counsel for defendant David Samuel Griffin asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.
I
While defendant was a prisoner at California State Prison, Sacramento, some heroin fell out of his pants pocket. Officers recovered the heroin and told defendant he would be subject to a strip search. Defendant then produced a piece of plastic sharpened to a point.
Defendant pled no contest to possession of a weapon by a state prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)) and possession of heroin in a state prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6). The court imposed a two-year term, to be served consecutively to the term he was already serving, and ordered various fines and fees.
Defendant appeals. He has not obtained a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
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.
MAURO , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
