P. v. Navarro
Filed 12/10/08 P. v. Navarro CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ENRIQUE NAVARRO, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | F055591 (Super. Ct. No. 08CM1022) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Peter M. Schultz, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On April 9, 2008, Cynthia Donez was working security at the Tachi Palace Casino. At approximately 2:45 a.m., she observed appellant, Enrique Navarro, Jr., and Alberto Montejano through a surveillance camera in an elevator appear to exchange cash for drugs. Kings County Sheriff Deputy Benjamin Moore was dispatched to the casino and contacted Montejano. He subsequently found a glass pipe and a small quantity of methamphetamine on Montejanos person. Navarro was contacted by Deputy Scott Ward. During a consensual search, Ward found a glass pipe and a small amount of methamphetamine on Navarros person.
On May 6, 2008, the district attorney filed an information charging Navarro with the sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code. 11377, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364). The information also alleged two prior conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code 11370.2, subd. (c)) and two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (a)).
On June 6, 2008, the court heard and denied Navarros Marsden[1]motion.
On June 9, 2008, Navarro pled guilty to the sale charge and admitted two prior conviction enhancements in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancements and a stipulated eight-year term, the lower term of two years on the sale offense and two three-year prior conviction enhancements. Additionally, after waiving a presentence report, Navarro requested immediate sentencing, and was sentenced to the indicated eight-year term.
Navarros appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Navarro has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
[1]People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)
