P. v. Sams

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 11/5/13  P. v. Sams CA2/6

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 

SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT

 

DIVISION SIX

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,       Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   RICHARD JOSEPH SAMS,       Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B246511 (Super. Ct. No. F467349) (San Luis Obispo County)

 

                        Richard Joseph Sams pled
guilty to two counts of second degree
burglary (Pen. Code, § 495)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1],
identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), two counts of forgery of a check
(§ 470, subd. (d), §476), and possession
of methamphetamine for sale.  (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) 
He also admitted to having served two prior prison terms.  (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)  The trial court sentenced appellant to a
"realignment" sentence of five years, eight months in county
jail.  (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B).)  Execution of sentence was suspended with
respect to two years, eight months of that time, which appellant was ordered to
serve on supervised release. 

                        In November 2011, law
enforcement officers arrived at appellant's Grover
Beach motel room to conduct a
probation search.  Appellant ran from
them and discarded a bag containing 92 grams of methamphetamine.  A search of the motel room disclosed more
drugs, cash and drug paraphernalia.  In
August 2012, law enforcement searched another motel room of appellant's and
found equipment used to falsify debit cards. 
Officers later discovered numerous forged checks linked to appellant.

                        We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent appellant.  After counsel's review of the record, he
filed an opening brief raising no issues. 
Counsel declared that he had advised appellant of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief.  On August
26, 2013, we also advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to
personally submit any contentions he wished to raise on appeal.  We have received no supplemental brief from
him.  We have reviewed the entire record
and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.  (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People
v. Kelley (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)

                        The judgment is
affirmed.

                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 

 

 

                                                                                                YEGAN,
J.

 

We concur:

 

 

                        GILBERT, P.J.

 

 

                        PERREN, J.

 



John
A. Trice, Judge

 

Superior
Court County
of San Luis Obispo

 

______________________________

 

 

                        California Appellate
Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner,
Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and
Appellant. 

 

                        No appearance for
Respondent.