P. v. McKamie
Filed 10/27/06 P. v. McKamie CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNIE CHARLES McKAMIE, Defendant and Appellant. | B187960 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA288566) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed.
Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
Officers on patrol noticed Ronnie Charles McKamie sitting in a parked car drinking from a can of malt liquor. They approached and asked him to place his hands on the steering wheel. When he complied, the officers saw an off-white rock-like substance on the center armrest which, when removed, revealed a stash of cash. McKamie was arrested, charged, and convicted of one count of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Safe. Code, § 11351.5), after which he admitted that he had served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5). The trial court sentenced McKamie to state prison for a term of seven years (high term of five years plus two consecutive years for the prior prison term enhancements).
McKamie filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. After reviewing the record, appellate counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On September 15, 2006, we notified McKamie that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues he wanted us to consider. McKamie did not respond. With one minor exception (the Blakely issue suggested by the high term sentence), our independent review of the record satisfies us that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Because there remains a doubt about the Blakely issue, we deem it raised and preserved should the United States Supreme Court render a decision contrary to the current state of California law.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
VOGEL, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, Acting P.J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
