P. v. Simmons
Filed 6/22/12 P. v.
Simmons 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Placer)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RODNEY TAUREZ SIMMONS,
Defendant and Appellant.
C069213
(Super.
Ct. No. 62105641B)
Appointed counsel
for defendant Rodney Taurez Simmons asked this court to review the record
to determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (
436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns
regarding presentence credits. We will
affirm the judgment.
I
On April 5, 2011, after dark, defendant
drove past a parked patrol car on a public road. Officer Ralph Pratt, who was inside the
patrol car typing up notes from a prior call, saw defendant drive by and noted
that he could not see inside the driver’s side window because of the tint on
the window. Believing the tint was too
dark to be legal, Officer Pratt finished what he was doing and then drove after
defendant.
When Officer Pratt
reached defendant, he pulled him over and asked to see his driver’s
license. Officer Pratt also asked
defendant if he was currently on probation or parole; defendant admitted he was
on parole. Defendant’s passenger, Diane,
admitted she was on probation. Officer
Pratt then returned to his patrol vehicle and confirmed defendant’s identity;
another officer was on his way to provide backup. Once the second officer arrived, the two
officers detained defendant and Diane, searched their persons, and searched the
car.
A search of
defendant’s person revealed two stacks of money, one totaling $284 and one
totaling $50. The $50 stack included a
$20 bill that was ripped in half. In
addition, the officers found a cell phone in defendant’s pocket. There were no text messages on that phone. The officers also found a cell phone on the
front passenger seat; Diane claimed it was hers.
A search of the
phone Diane claimed to be hers revealed several text messages. One of the outgoing text messages was to
“Lala” and said: “So that’s what’s up. I got the fire with the cries. So if you know anyone who needs some, send
them my way.” Another, sent to “Ca$h My
Daddy,” said “Baby, the homegirl said how much for two grams of the
clear” That outgoing message was
followed up by another outgoing message to Ca$h My Daddy that read, “Baby, she
said all she got is 70 right now and if you work with her.” Further investigation revealed the nickname
Ca$h My Daddy was assigned to defendant’s phone number, and “Lala” was a
nickname for Diane’s friend Terri Bartholomew.
Following up on
the text messages, officers went to Bartholomew’s apartment. Bartholomew told officers she was staying
with her friend “Karrie”; Karrie wanted to buy methamphetamine, so Bartholomew
arranged a deal for her. The officers
spoke to Karrie, who was also in the apartment.
She recounted that Diane, along with a black man with gold teeth, a gold
necklace, and a gold ring, arrived in a white Lincoln
to sell her methamphetamine. The man
gave Karrie a bag of methamphetamine and she gave him two $20 bills and one
$10 bill; one of the $20 bills was ripped completely in half. Karrie “snorted a line” of the drug but
flushed the rest down the toilet when she heard police at the door.
Defendant was
later charged with selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379,
subd. (a)), transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379,
subd. (a)), and conspiracy to sell/transport methamphetamine (Pen. Code, § 182,
subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged
that defendant was previously convicted of a serious or violent felony (Pen.
Code, §§ 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (b)-(i)), served eight prior prison
terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), was previously convicted of a
drug-related crime (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)), and was
ineligible for probation (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4)).
Defendant pleaded
no contest to a single count of offering to sell methamphetamine and admitted
being previously convicted of a strike offense.
He was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years in state prison. The court ordered defendant to pay various
fines and fees and awarded him 177 days of custody credit (118 actual and 59
conduct).
Defendant filed
three notices of appeal from the
single judgment. His request for a
certificate of probable cause was denied.
II
Appointed counsel
filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked this
court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende,
supra, 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 have elapsed and we have
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 is
affirmed.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
MAURO , J.
HOCH , J.
