P. v. Jones
Filed 11/13/09 P. v. Jones CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES EDWARD JONES, Defendant and Appellant. | H034082 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC788924) |
After defendant Charles Edward Jones was apprehended in an illegal drug house in San Jose with crack cocaine on his person, he was charged with possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and presence in a place where a controlled substance is being used. (Health & Saf. Code, 11365, subd. (a).) The felony complaint further alleged that defendant had a strike prior and a prison prior. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to these charges, and he admitted the strike and prison priors. Prior to sentencing defendant, the trial court heard a Romero[1]motion. Finding that defendants long history of criminality, substance abuse, failed drug rehabilitation and poor performance on probation and parole brought him within the spirit of the Three Strikes law, the trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison. The court awarded defendant 727 days of custody credits and imposed a variety of fines. This timely appeal ensued.
On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. This time has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
