P. v. Kennedy
Filed 6/13/08 P. v. Kennedy CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A120886
v. (MendocinoCounty
Super. Ct. No.
HANK JACKSON KENNEDY, SCUKCRCR0781636)
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________/
Hank Jackson Kennedy (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of transporting marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a).) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On December 11, 2007, a deputy with the Mendocino County Sheriffs Department initiated a parole stop of the car appellant was driving. The deputy determined that appellants license was suspended and detained him. A subsequent search of appellants car uncovered over three pounds of marijuana.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, transporting marijuana. The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to the charge. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed appellant would be sentenced to the low term of two years in prison, and other counts and enhancements would be dropped.
Subsequently at sentencing, the court sentenced appellant to the agreed two-year term.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Before accepting appellants plea, the court explained to appellant the constitutional rights he was waiving. The court also told appellant the consequences of his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Reardon, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
