P. v. Okuma
Filed 12/2/13 P. v. Okuma 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
DARRELL ONEIL OKUMA,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072427
(Super. Ct. No. 12F02730)
This case
comes to us pursuant to
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), which
requires that, at counsel’s request, we review the entire record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues that might benefit the defendant.
Procedural Facts
Following
the denial of defendant Darrell Oneil Okuma’s motion to suppress evidence, a
jury convicted him of possession of methamphetamine. Defendant then admitted one allegation of a
prior serious felony conviction and three allegations of service of a prior
prison term.
The court
sentenced defendant to state prison
for seven years, consisting of the mid-term of two years, doubled to four
because of the strike, plus an additional one year for each service of a prior
prison term. The court awarded defendant
337 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 169 days served plus 168
days for conduct. The court imposed
restitution fines and fees as follows: $240
in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45; a $40 court security
fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 conviction fee (Gov. Code,
§ 70373).
Facts from Jury Trial
On April 13, 2012, at 1:20 p.m., Sacramento City Police Officer
Sameer Sood and his partner Officer Hall were on patrol in a marked police
vehicle when they saw defendant standing near an open garbage bin. Sood made eye contact with defendant, who
then smiled and said that he was “just waiting for a ride.†Sood said that was fine and asked for
defendant’s name. Defendant responded,
“Okuma,†and said that was his complete name.
Finding this odd, Sood got out of the patrol car and approached
defendant to see if he could further identify him. As Sood approached defendant, the latter
appeared nervous and began patting his hands on his jacket and pants. Concerned for his safety, Sood asked
defendant to stop patting his clothing.
As Sood got closer to defendant, the latter said, “I just stole some
crystal from some girl.†Sood searched
defendant and found methamphetamine in a plastic baggie.
Defendant
testified that he had been staying at a nearby motel with his friend
Kendra. Defendant left the motel and
took a baggie of methamphetamine from Kendra because it was “hurting her.†Defendant’s intention was to throw away the
baggie of methamphetamine, but Officer Sood stopped him before he could do so.
A check of
the records of the motel where defendant claimed he stayed did not support his
story. There was no record of a person
named Okuma or Kendra having stayed on April 12 and/or 13 as defendant
claimed. In fact, the records showed
that the room numbers defendant gave for his stay were vacant on those dates.
Discussion
Appointed
counsel has filed an opening brief
requesting that we review the record to determine whether there are any
arguable issues that could result in a more favorable outcome for
defendant. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has
informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of
the filing of the opening brief. More
than 30 days from that date elapsed and we have had no communication from
defendant. We have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record and have been unable to find any issues from which defendant
might obtain a more favorable outcome.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed.
RAYE ,
P. J.
We concur:
BUTZ ,
J.
HOCH , J.
