P. v.
Mallory

















Filed 4/26/13 P. v. Mallory CA4/1











>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.





COURT OF APPEAL,
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION ONE



STATE OF CALIFORNIA






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY GLENN MALLORY, Defendant and Appellant.

D062556 (Super. Ct. No. SCD240407)

APPEAL from a judgment of the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Superior Court of San Diego County,
Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.



INTRODUCTION

Larry Glenn Mallory entered a negotiated plea of
guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). He also admitted having a prior conviction
for selling a controlled substance.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c).) Consistent with the terms of the plea
agreement, the trial court sentenced
Mallory to five years in local custody.
Additionally, in exchange for his guilty plea and at the district
attorney's request, the trial court dismissed another charge and seven other
sentence enhancement allegations.

Mallory appeals. He requested and received a certificate of
probable cause. His appellate counsel
requested we conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436. Having done so and having
identified no reasonably arguable appellate issues, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

In the plea agreement and during the
plea colloquy, Mallory admitted he possessed methamphetamine for sale and had
previously been convicted of possessing a controlled substance for sale. According to the probation report, San
Diego police narcotics officers saw Mallory
conduct a hand-to-hand transaction with two men in the parking lot of a fast
food restaurant.

Uniformed officers were called to
the scene to speak with Mallory. When
the officers attempted to handcuff Mallory, he started to pull away as if he
was going to run. The officers detained
him and searched him based on a valid Fourth Amendment waiver. They found two cell phones, $94 in cash, 14
baggies of methamphetamine totaling 1.31 grams, and four baggies of cocaine
totaling .73 grams. They also found 18
packets of marijuana totaling 13.4 grams in his backpack.

After his guilty plea and before the
trial court sentenced him, Mallory requested new counsel under >People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d
118. After conducting a closed hearing,
the trial court denied the request.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel filed a
brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal,
but requested we review the record for error as mandated by >People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 440-442.
There were no possible, but not reasonably arguable appellate issues
identified in the brief. (See >Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738, 744; People v. Wende, at p. 440;
People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d
444, 447.)

We granted Mallory permission to
file a brief on his own behalf. He did
not do so.

As requested by counsel, we reviewed
the record for error and did not find any reasonably arguable appellate
issues. Mallory has been competently
represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.





McCONNELL, P. J.



WE CONCUR:





McDONALD,
J.





IRION, J.