P. v. Hernandez
Filed 1/5/10 P. v. Hernandez CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAIRO SAUL HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B211197 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA094405) |
THE COURT:*
Jairo Saul Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of illegally possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted having suffered a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court placed appellant on three years formal probation on conditions, including the condition that he perform 45 days of Caltrans service.
Appellants conviction was based upon the following facts:
On December 11, 2007, Officer Jesse Reyes and his partner, Officer Scott Coffey, were in full uniform, patrolling a high crime, high narcotics area of Los Angeles in their unmarked patrol car. Officer Reyes observed appellant standing on the sidewalk in front of a Doughnut King. Appellant made eye contact with the officers vehicle and then with the officers, bent down, placed something on the sidewalk and walked away to a parked car where another person was standing. Appellant appeared startled and nervous. At the location where appellant had bent down, Officer Reyes found a bic lighter and an off-white substance which he believed, and which was later determined, to be a usable amount of cocaine base sufficient for a single use. The officers detained appellant. Appellant denied that he ever possessed any cocaine or placed anything on the sidewalk and claimed that he was at the location because he had run out of gas.
Before trial, appellant made a Pitchess[1]motion seeking discovery of police personnel records of the arresting and investigating officers regarding any complaints of dishonesty, false arrest, planting evidence, fabrication of police reports, fabrication of probable cause, false testimony perjury and similar acts of moral turpitude. The trial court granted the motion, at least in part, ordering production of information regarding false reports and planting evidence, performed an in camera inspection and ordered some of the information to be released to appellant.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On September 2, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
We have examined the entire record including the in camera hearing on the Pitchess motion and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
[1]Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).
