P. v. Lutzow
Filed 6/20/08 P. v. Lutzow 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN EDWARD LUTZOW, Defendant and Appellant. | C057981 (Super. Ct. No. CM028019) |
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On September 1, 2007, Officer Prosise went to defendant Brian Edward Lutzows home to conduct a parole search. While conducting the search, Officer Prosise found a soft camera case and a coin pouch on the nightstand in defendants bedroom which contained a total of 46.7 grams of methamphetamine. The methamphetamine was contained in separate packaging. He also found over $1,900 and a digital scale. He did not find any paraphernalia of use. Officer Prosise Mirandized[1]defendant and asked him about the substance. Defendant replied it was probably meth or speed. Defendant indicated he had been working, but had not made enough money to pay for the quantity of drugs found.
Leon Ward later claimed ownership of the items found in defendants bedroom. Officer Prosise investigated and determined defendants roommate had never seen Ward and that Ward would not answer specific questions about the drugs found.
Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378.) It was also alleged he had served four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and had sustained two prior drug offense convictions. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (c).)
Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted he had served one prior prison term and sustained one prior conviction for controlled substances. The remaining allegations were dismissed with a Harvey[2]waiver. Defendant also agreed to an asset forfeiture. Relying on defendants record of numerous prior convictions, the court sentenced him to the upper term of three years for the possession for sale charge. The court added one year for the prior prison term enhancement and three years for the prior drug conviction enhancement. Various fines and fees were also imposed.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.)
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. (People v. 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.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
HULL, J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]Miranda v. Arizona(1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694].
[2]People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
