P. v. Miguel
Filed 7/13/09 P. v. Miguel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA DELOSANGEL MIGUEL, Defendant and Appellant. | C060159 (Super. Ct. No. 08F02732) |
On April 3, 2008, Elk Grove police officers executed a traffic stop on the car in which defendant Maria Delosangel Miguel was a passenger. When asked to identify herself, defendant gave the officers her sisters name and claimed that she had no identification. The driver of the car also did not have identification and the other passenger identified himself as defendants son.
Because none of the occupants of the car had a valid drivers license, officers told them the car would be towed. The officers then noticed an open purse on the front passenger seat, which appeared to have a drivers license in it. The officers looked at the license, which was fraudulent, and saw several pieces of mail with defendants name on them. The driver claimed the purse was hers and defendants son began to cry, saying he had given the police a false name.
The officers continued searching the car and found a bag under the drivers seat that contained 49.25 grams of methamphetamine and $75 in cash. In addition, the officers found several plastic bags containing smaller amounts of methamphetamine, three digital scales, and a total of $1,339 in cash.
Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine and providing false information to a peace officer. Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine with an agreed upon sentence of five years of formal probation and 300 days in county jail. In exchange for her plea, the charge of providing false information was dismissed.
Defendant was subsequently sentenced in accordance with her plea. The court awarded defendant 126 days of custody credit and ordered her to pay a $200 restitution fine. Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 (order of probation) is affirmed.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
